Bush's Address on Gay Marriage

[Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's (R-CO) version of the amendment has 126 co-sponsors. 
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) has 10 co-sponsors on the Senate version of the 
amendment.  I have a feeling that Iraq will become less of an issue in the 
months to come; gay marriage and the economy will be the hot spots.  Senate 
vote on the amendment could come as early as next Wednesday. If you care about 
this issue, please ask your Senators and Representatives to vote No on this 
amendment.

There is a muddling of the meaning of marriage in the minds of 
fundamentalists. They cannot separate the legal concept from the holy 
sacrement. Gay marriage is a legal union, it does not force churches to 
sanctify the relationship. 

Marilyn Musgrave, in an interview with ABC News, declared she was inspired to 
put forth the amendment by the great people of the nation fighting for the 
defense of traditional marriage.  She, like others, (including Rick Santorum 
of PA) have declared the legal sanction of gay marriage will lead us down a 
slippery slope of polygamy, group marriage, incest and bestiality.  That, my 
friends, remains to be seen.

I present to you, in its entirety, W's inspiring speech about those darn 
activist judges and the need to preserve traditional marriage.

bon appetit.

-x]



THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. The United States Senate this past week began an 
important discussion about the meaning of marriage. Senators are considering a 
constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental institution of 
civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined. 

This difficult debate was forced upon our country by a few activist judges and 
local officials, who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of 
marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the state's highest court have 
ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. In 
San Francisco, city officials issued thousands of marriage licenses to people 
of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. Lawsuits in 
several states, including New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, and Oregon, are also 
attempting to overturn the traditional definition of marriage by court order. 
 
In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and 
President Clinton signed it into law. That legislation defines marriage, for 
purposes of federal law, as a union between a man and a woman, and declares 
that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. 
Yet an activist court that strikes down traditional marriage would have little 
problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Overreaching judges could 
declare that all marriages recognized in Massachusetts or San Francisco be 
recognized as marriages everywhere else. 

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only 
alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only 
law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be 
undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice. 

A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in 
marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can 
teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that 
marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an 
orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the 
institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of 
marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, 
religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the 
institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called 
marriage "an evolving paradigm." That sends a message to the next generation 
that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and 
human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution. 

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional 
marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass 
along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the 
health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not 
undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will 
undermine the family structure. 

On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run 
deep. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and 
decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices heard. And 
that is exactly the purpose behind the constitutional amendment process. 
American democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in 
America. 

The process has now begun in the Congress. I urge members of the House and 
Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment that 
defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband 
and wife. 

Thank you for listening. 

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/