« Zimbabwe Suffers Under Communism's Rule | Main | Newt Gingrich as a Litmus Test for Moral Conservatives »

Bush Backs Off Defense of Marriage Amendment

President Bush's support of a constitutional amendment "protecting" marriage against activist judges was solidified in his notable statement made on Feb. 24, 2004:

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. 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. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

However, reports now indicate the Bush's push for a constitutional amendment has changed.

WASHINGTON, Jan 16 (AFP) - President George W. Bush will not actively seek to ban gay marriage in the United States during his second term in office -- a stance certain to anger the social conservatives who helped re-elect him, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

In an interview, the daily asked Bush if he would aggressively lobby senators during his second term in office to pass an amendment outlawing marriage in all 50 states.

"I do believe it's necessary," Bush said. But he went on to imply that pursuing it in the US Senate, which must approve a constitutional amendment by 67 of its 100 votes, would be futile.

The article paints Bush negatively, and it should. His support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was one of the key issues that some used to distinguish him from Sen. John Kerry during the presidential campaign. The Kerry campaign recognized this fact and sought to undermine Bush’s conservative Christian support by repeatedly referring to the Vice President's (gay) daughter.

The White House responded quickly to the alarm raised by Bush’s more recent remarks:

What the president was speaking to was some of the legislative realities in the United States Senate," Mr. Bartlett said. "As you know, it requires 67 votes in the United States Senate for a constitutional amendment to move forward. That's a very high bar. What we learned through the debate last year is that many members of the Senate believe that the Defense of Marriage Act first must be overturned or challenged before we take the next step of a constitutional amendment."

The president's statement in the interview with The Post, Mr. Bartlett said, "does not change President Bush's view about amendment, the need for an amendment. And he'll continue to push for an amendment."

Thus, Bush continues to support DOMA but will not actively pursue it due to what he views as the predetermined outcome; he is "realistic". However, Bush could not have expected a Senate with more than 67 Republican Senators back in 2004 when he previously pledged his support of DOMA. In fact, given the overwhelming nationwide defeat of referendums aimed at establishing gay marriage, if anything, Bush has more public support than before. Did the election outcome divert the gay marriage "crisis" that invoked the President prior statements?

While Bush's change in emphasis is alarming, it apparently is not unexpected. Glenn Reynolds, who supports gay marriage, says, "I told you so!" Back in September 2004 he viewed Bush's support of DOMA as "pandering" to conservatives. Reynolds notes that others, including Ripclawe, believe that Bush is "waiting for the right time."

Given the trajectory of American values and mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, I'm skeptical that there will be a time that is better than the present for DOMA to be considered in the Senate. David Limbaugh has more.

Posted by tim at January 17, 2005 12:30 PM

Articles Related to Culture and Society: