Press Briefing-Marriage Amendment

[full:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040211-3.html#4
'The President believes very strongly that everybody should be treated with 
dignity and respect. And I think his record reflects that.'

No comment.
-z]

Q Scott, on the issue of gay marriage, is the President prepared to issue a 
declaration of support in favor of a constitutional amendment on gay marriage? 

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President is continuing to look closely at this 
issue. There are some ongoing events in Massachusetts, certainly. We continue 
to monitor those events in Massachusetts. The President does find the recent 
court ruling in Massachusetts very troubling. The President believes very 
strongly that marriage is a sacred institution, and that we should do what is 
needed to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. He has made it very 
clear, going back most recently to his State of the Union address that 
activist judges are seeking to redefine marriage, and if they continue to seek 
to redefine marriage without regard for the voice of the people, then the only 
alternative would be the constitutional process. 

Q What's the political benefit to him of supporting the constitutional 
process? 

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a principled issue. That's the way the President looks 
at it. This is an issue of principle. In fact, he talked about that in his 
State of the Union address. The President believes very strongly that 
everybody should be treated with dignity and respect. And I think his record 
reflects that. But this is about an enduring institution in America, and in 
order to have a strong America, we should work to make sure that that 
institution continues to endure. 

Q It's difficult to ignore the potential implications of a head-to-head race 
between a person who supports a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and a 
person who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, this is a view that the President has always held. 
That is the view that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a 
woman. He believes very strongly that we should protect and defend the 
sanctity of marriage. And it's an issue of principle in his view. The 
President makes decisions and takes stands on principle, and based on a clear 
philosophy. He does what he says he's going to do, and he's always said that 
he will work to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. 

Q Are you saying the President hasn't decided yet what he is going to do on 
this? 

MR. McCLELLAN: That's -- what I'm saying is that we continue to look very 
closely at it, yes. 

Q But he's made no decision about the need for a constitutional amendment, 
whether he should intervene, whether he should make a public statement? You're 
saying that he has not yet reached that point? 

MR. McCLELLAN: What he has said is that, if necessary, he will do what is 
legally needed to protect the sanctity of marriage. He has indicated that the 
legislation by Congresswoman Musgrave reflects the principles that he could 
support. And that's what he has said. 

Q But he's not prepared at this point to go beyond what he has said 
previously? 

MR. McCLELLAN: At this point, we continue to look very closely at this issue. 
And obviously, we'll keep you updated if there are any new developments. But 
it's an issue of great significance. He talked about that in his State of the 
Union. 

Q The country already has a Defense of Marriage Act that's on the books. 

MR. McCLELLAN: That relates to federal law. 

Q That's federal law. So why is a constitutional amendment necessary? Why does 
the President believe it would be necessary, if he ultimately decides to do 
that, as opposed to leaving it to the states? 

MR. McCLELLAN: I understand. For the reasons he discussed in the State of the 
Union. You have some activist judges that are seeking to redefine marriage, 
and if -- this issue is about protecting the sanctity of marriage. The 
President believes very strongly that we should protect and defend it. It is a 
sacred institution. And when you have activist judges seeking to redefine that 
institution, the issue of marriage, then the only alternative may be the 
constitutional process, because they're not taking into account the voice of 
the people when they make these decisions. 

Q When you say you're watching developments closely, it suggests you're 
watching what's going on in Massachusetts. If Massachusetts successfully 
passes an amendment that would overturn what you describe as an activist 
judge's decision, would that suffice? Would that then clear it up for the 
President, that a constitutional amendment to the federal Constitution is no 
longer necessary? 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's one area where we're, obviously, looking at 
closely. I mean, there are other court decisions that have been out there, but 
we will continue to look at this issue in terms of the nation. 

Q But if the principle here is that it's got to be up to the people, so if the 
people of Massachusetts take action here, would that obviate the need for the 
administration -- 

MR. McCLELLAN: What we said is it's important for the voice of the people to 
be heard. I think that the American people support the President's view that 
marriage is a sacred institution and that we should work to protect it. 

Q But what I'm asking, do you need to do anything if Massachusetts changes 
this? 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can't get into saying that one particular issue will 
necessarily drive that decision. This is an issue -- 

Q But you're saying, before he makes up his mind -- 

MR. McCLELLAN: But Massachusetts is -- Massachusetts is something we are 
looking at closely in the overall context of this issue. We continue to look 
closely at this issue because it's a very important matter, and it's an 
important debate, as the President said in the State of the Union. 

Q Some conservative leaders say that they've gotten an iron-clad pledge from 
the White House that the President will, in fact, support a constitutional 
amendment to ban gay marriage. Are you saying that they have misinterpreted or 
somebody went too far, there's a misunderstanding? 

MR. McCLELLAN: I can't speak for those groups. I don't know what individual 
gave them that assurance. The President has stated his position very clearly, 
publicly. And his position remains what I just outlined to you. 

Q One account that I saw identified the senior official as Karl Rove, said 
that he was the one who delivered a pledge. 

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that the White House has said what the President has 
said, which is that, if necessary, he would be prepared to support a 
constitutional amendment that would protect the sanctity of marriage. 

Q But the "if necessary" trigger has not been met yet? 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, if the President has something further to say 
on this, then we will let you know at that point. 

Q You said that the President supports the proposed language of an amendment 
that Congresswomen Musgrave has introduced. That language seems to leave open 
the possibility that states could allow for these civil unions, to provide 
equal rights to benefits and other things for homosexuals. 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has previously said that states certainly 
have the right to enter into contractual -- legal contractual arrangements on 
issues such as visitations and insurance benefits. But this issue is about the 
sanctity of marriage, and the President believes that we should protect the 
sanctity of marriage. 

Q It's also about the Constitution. And my understanding of one of the reasons 
that opponents of gay marriage think a constitutional amendment is necessary 
is because the Constitution requires states to recognize the contractual 
arrangements of other states. Just as states have to recognize divorces in 
Nevada as legitimate in North Carolina, so, too, would they have to recognize, 
under that full faith and credit clause, civil unions in Vermont or 
Massachusetts? Is he okay with that? 

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the Defense of Marriage gets into some of those issues. 
What he's focused on is the issue of marriage and that marriage should be 
protected, because he believes strongly that it is a sacred institution, it is 
an enduring institution in this country. 

Q If I could just press you once more, that there are a lot of people who 
think that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutionally vulnerable because 
of that full faith and credit clause, that Congress can't amend the 
Constitution that way. Would the President be opposed to civil unions in 
Vermont or Massachusetts being recognized through court action in Ohio, or 
Missouri, or elsewhere? Would that be a problem for him? 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think the issue that is before the country is 
the issue of the sanctity of marriage, and should we protect that institution, 
the institution of marriage. The President -- he went back -- if you go back 
to during the campaign, he said he would not have supported it for the state 
of Texas. And I think the Defense of Marriage Act gets into defining for 
federal law that marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it goes on to 
say that states don't have to recognize other states' laws on that issue. 

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