June 4, 2006


Bush Calls for an Amendment Banning Same-Sex Nuptials (JIM RUTENBERG, 6/04/06, NY Times)

President Bush on Saturday urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying in his weekly radio address that marriage "cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots."

Calling marriage "the most enduring and important human institution," Mr. Bush said that a constitutional amendment was needed because "activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years."

Mr. Bush's radio address was the beginning of what White House aides had said would be a major push to support the marriage amendment, which the Senate is to begin debating in the next couple of days.

Believers push for marriage measure (Julia Duin, 6/04/06, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
The breadth of support among religious groups for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman extends well beyond the boundaries of evangelical Protestantism.

The Religious Coalition for Marriage, a fledgling organization forged to fight same-sex "marriage," includes eight U.S. Catholic cardinals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Church of God in Christ and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

Also signed up to support passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment are Mormons (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Missouri Synod Lutherans, Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, among a host of groups representing more than 100 million Americans.

"This is unprecedented," said coalition co-founder Robert George, a constitutional scholar at Princeton University. "Despite historical theological divisions, [we] are saying with a united voice that we do not want to go where activist judges have taken us."

There's been a spate of stories about how Democrats recognize that they have to get right with the godly to be competitive in elections, so they should obviously be joining in the defense of marriage, right?

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 4, 2006 12:00 AM

Most Democrats are joining, they just have a noisy faction that disagrees. And they can't shut them up.

Posted by: Brandon at June 4, 2006 8:41 AM

Throwing more meat to the fangless lions. Foolish, but it must be done to cross (pun intended) off another non-issue on the list of the ridiculous right.

Posted by: erp at June 4, 2006 9:02 AM

Issues like marriage are the only ones that matter.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 9:11 AM

Issues like marriage matter, they just aren't constitutional matters.

Posted by: erp at June 4, 2006 10:16 AM

Any time the judiciary overreaches it's a constitutional matter.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 10:19 AM

The amendment has no chance for passage in Congress. This is an easy way for Bush to pander to his evangelical constituency without having to expend much political capital. The issue belongs with the states, not the Constitution.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 4, 2006 1:27 PM

I don't think so Mr. Duquette. It all comes back to the right of free association. That makes it a constitional and national issue.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 4, 2006 3:07 PM

It'll pass Congress.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 4:23 PM

The issue only belongs to the States as long as the Supremes say so.

Posted by: Pepys at June 4, 2006 11:28 PM

I don't know what you mean by "pass" or "Congress", but there's no way it gets 67 votes in the Senate.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 5, 2006 2:18 PM

This year, which is why there will be eventually.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 2:38 PM