Reply #1: Evangelicals fuming about Bush’s remark on federal marriage amendment [View All]

White House spokesman says president was speaking realistically of measure’s support in Senate; Bush remains committed to amendment

By Tammye Nash
Staff Writer

Almost a year after he first spoke in favor of an amendment to the United States Constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage, President Bush was quoted this week saying passage of the amendment was no longer one of his priorities.

In an interview with the Washington Post published last Sunday, the president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because many senators believe the federal Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient.

“Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I’d take their admonition seriously. … Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate,” Bush said.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton on Sept. 22, 1996, allows individual states to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state. It also for purposes of federal law defined marriage as “a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.” <snip>

http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=5593


EDITORIAL: Bush signals he won't push hard, if at all, for ban
The Lufkin Daily News
Friday, January 21, 2005

One of the more odious ideas pushed by President Bush during his re-election campaign was that the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as being solely between "one man and one woman." That's our definition of marriage, too, but that's where our agreement ends.

First of all, marriage is a matter for the states, not the federal government, to decide.

And more importantly, one of the reasons the nation has historically amended the Constitution — except for Prohibition, which was later repealed — was to expand, and not restrict, individual freedom. Amending the Constitution to make it legal to discriminate against some Americans just because they are gay would set a dangerous precedent by signaling out some Americans for less-than-equal treatment.

Since winning re-election, Bush has been silent on a gay marriage amendment — until he was asked about it during an interview last week with The Washington Post. We don't doubt the president personally opposes gay marriage, but his response suggests that his pre-election support for a Federal Marriage Amendment was a matter of political expedience to shore up his conservative base, and not one of bedrock principle. <snip>

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/01/21/20050121LDNeddy.html;COXnetJSessionID=B1KQy9ZfoqVfjRZrep3jGYn0idcvk4xyg9xRuxpWs9o5vnFiwWqm!1872676203?urac=n&urvf=11066108320370.12246460540870385