Bush: Marriage requires “clarity,” amendment to U.S. Constitution “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millenia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,” President Bush said this morning. “Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.”
And that clarity can come only one way, he said. “If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America.”
This news is breaking as Weblog hits the posting deadline, but you’ll shortly be able to read the full text of Bush’s remarks at the White House web site. Expect Bush’s endorsement, which did not mention any specific wording for such an amendment, to be a part of the White House Press Briefing at 12:30 Eastern time.
In the meantime, here’s a load of articles on gay marriage, homosexuality, and related topics.
More on the Federal Marriage Amendment:
- Marilyn’s amendment | The first-term congresswoman who’s taking the lead against same-sex marriage (The Weekly Standard)
- Incidents and accidents | Hints and allegations about the Federal Marriage Amendment (Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review Online)
Gay marriage:
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ a thicket for Bush | President Bush, who has hesitated to support a constitutional amendment against homosexual “marriage,” is tangled in an issue that could cost him re-election, political analysts and prominent Republicans say (The Washington Times)
- Gay marriage: Until order, chaos | Now that it has started, the frenzied legal debate over gay marriage will not end with a ruling by any old California trial judge, or by any old California Supreme Court justice, or even by a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court itself (CBS News)
- Politicians fear backlash from gay ‘marriage’ | San Francisco’s bold experiment in issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses occurs at a critical juncture, both politically and culturally (The Washington Times)
- Governors skittish over same-sex ‘marriage’ issue | The nation’s governors are treading gingerly on same-sex “marriage,” but several in both parties say it will be impossible to duck the issue in this election year (The Washington Times)
- Gay marriage row grips US society | San Francisco’s sanctioning of same-sex marriage has opened a Pandora’s Box of social and legal issues that is as divisive and toughly fought across the United States as abortion rights (AFP)
- Test of an issue | The race to succeed Jacques seen key in gay marriage debate (The Boston Globe)
- With Albany mum on same-sex marriage, New York gay advocates look to courts | Advocates of gay marriage say courts are have a more effective means for changing the state’s laws (The New York Times)
- Wed the people? (In order to form a more perfect gay union) | The dispute over marriage is as purely semantic as they come, particularly in a society as obsessed with words as ours is (The New York Times)
- Gay community debates gay marriage | Some say issue is monogamy, not marriage (Talk of the Nation, NPR)
Opinion:
- Is gay sexuality going back in the closet? | There is a growing sense among progressive gay thinkers that these provisional victories have come with a high cost. What has the gay community given up to reach this point? (Patrick Moore, Houston Chronicle)
- Marriage is for the children | It is puzzling that that so-called “family values” folks are opposed to gay marriage. The legality of marriage protects children (Joan Ryan, San Francisco Chronicle)
- Reasons for marriage | David Blankenhorn notes that much of the discussion has been a referendum not on marriage but on our attitudes toward homosexuality. He’s hoping somehow to get the discussion back where it needs to be—on marriage (William Raspberry, The Washington Post)
- Marriage of inconvenience | Why same-sex nuptials make Democrats nervous (John Fund, The Wall Street Journal)
Mass. Gay marriage:
- Majority in Mass. poll oppose gay marriage | Survey also finds civil union support (The Boston Globe)
- Polls: Most in Mass. oppose gay marriage | A majority of Massachusetts residents oppose legalizing gay marriage, a significant change since the state’s highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry (Associated Press)
San Francisco gay marriages:
- Gay wedding bells ring again in San Francisco | Gay couples lined up for marriage licenses after a weekend hiatus, despite California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s warnings of civil strife (AFP)
- California seeks ruling on gay marriage | Facing increased pressure to intervene in San Francisco’s same-sex marriage debate, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he’ll go straight to the state Supreme Court to try to resolve the deeply divisive issue (Associated Press)
- Newsom invites governor to see gay rites | He dismisses fears same-sex marriages will trigger violence (San Francisco Chronicle)
- Schwarzenegger seeks halt to gay marriages | The governor directs the state attorney general to immediately pursue a judicial resolution of the issue. A second S.F. judge refuses to stop the unions (Los Angeles Times)
- Outlaw vows | A brash young mayor issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and opens a new front in America’s culture wars (Newsweek)
- I do … No, you don’t! | Why San Francisco’s brash mayor is taking on Schwarzenegger and Bush over gay marriage (Time)
- Judge refuses to stop ‘marriages’ | superior court judge yesterday declined to stop San Francisco from granting “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples, suggesting the rights of homosexual couples outweigh California’s voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman (The Washington Times)
- For a day, same-sex pairs get a warm reception | On Sunday, about 1,800 same-sex marriage supporters in San Francisco put the politics and law aside and had a party (The New York Times)
- San Francisco judge rules gay marriages can continue | Says opponents had not shown that the weddings were causing immediate harm (The New York Times)
- S.F. wedding planners are pursuing a legal strategy | San Francisco’s actions were deliberately planned with the courts in mind, according to lawyers who were involved in the discussions (Los Angeles Times)
New Mexico gay marriages:
- Glad to be wed, if only one day | Opposing edicts leave N.M. gays’ nuptials in legal limbo (The Washington Post)
- Calif. judge won’t halt gay nuptials | New Mexico county briefly follows San Francisco’s lead (The Washington Post)
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Suggest links and stories by sending e-mail to weblog@christianitytoday.com
Check out Books & Culture‘s weblog, Content & Context.
See our past Weblog updates:
February 23
and more, back to November 1999
