It’s quite long, and I can’t say I agree with 100% of it, but he raises some interesting points and I do think it’s worth a read.
I think I’m now officially burnt out on the gay marriage debate.
The text of the speech is here.
First off, no matter what people may have you believe, he did not endorse the FMA, he did not endorse H. J. RES. 56 or S. J. RES 26 which have been introduced in Congress. He called for AN amendment, but not any particular amendment. He never endorses any particular wording for the amendment. No mention is made of the troublesome “legal incidents thereof”. He doesn’t say civil unions should be banned at the same time. In fact, he actually says it should protect marriage while leaving the door open for other arrangements like civil unions.
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
Secondly, he addresses how this isn’t necessarily an action against states’ rights.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
I believe… that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my belief. If the amendment provides for partnership and civil union… that would be a good amendment.
Keeping in mind the President’s “free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage” belief, would anybody care to point out how Kerry’s position differs from that of President Bush.
I expect not, but since President Bush is a conservative some have no problem distorting his stance and calling him a bigot.
It’s been pointed out that the clip I was working off of above for Senator Kerry’s quote was actually in reference to a hypothetical Massachusetts amendment. That would mean that Kerry is taking a more states
Brian Griffin has a link saying Bush will probably support an amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. To Brian this makes President Bush a bigot. Not that him calling people bigots is that out of the ordinary, the word’s appeared in his blog 36 times in the past month.
Being in favor of defining marriage a certain way is nowhere close to the same thing as being a bigot. There are plenty of reasons someone might be in favor of an amendment to define marriage without it being bigotry.
Throughout history marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why should the courts be allowed to change that definition based on trumped up equal rights grounds? Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals have, and heterosexuals have the same limits preventing them from marrying someone of the same sex. The ability to marry whomever you please is not currently a right.
This is the text of the proposed amendment: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Now we come to the part of my post where I ask a bunch of questions and answer them all