Pro-Family Leaders: Bush's Call for Marriage Amendment the 'Right Thing'

by Bill Fancher, Allie Martin, and Jody Brown
February 25, 2004

(AgapePress) - Now that President Bush has called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman, pro-family groups are energized. While his political opponents say Tuesday's announcement is "divisive" and driving a "wedge" between the American people, some of his supporters say it is certain to become the definitive issue in the upcoming elections.

In his speech yesterday calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment, the president said that homosexual marriage is being forced on an unwilling nation by activist judges who can only be restrained by amending the Constitution. And while he understands fully the effort needed to get such an amendment enacted -- two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states -- he said Congress should move quickly to protect what he calls "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Not everyone in politics thinks the amendment is a good idea. For example, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom -- who two weeks ago defied California state law and authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples -- accuses President George Bush of trying to advance his own morality and political career.

"It's shameful that we're here, playing politics with the Constitution of the United States and playing politics that are going to divide a country and not unite a country," Newsom told Associated Press. "It's hardly compassionate conservatism."

Newsom says the president's call for a Federal Marriage Amendment is "wrong, divisive, and inappropriate," adding that he "can't believe people of good conscience from any ideological perspective can honestly say that the Constitution should be used to take rights away from people."

And Senator John Kerry -- Bush's likely opponent in November -- tells NBC that the president's call for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage drives a wedge between the American people. That reaction may explain why Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was eventually signed by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton.

Gary Bauer

As conservative pundit Gary Bauer says: "No matter what [Kerry] says today, there is no other way to interpret his vote against DOMA except as a vote for homosexual 'marriage,'" Bauer says. "Make no mistake ... the sanctity of marriage will be the defining issue of 2004. Now, the battle begins in earnest."

Bauer says since the president's statement, he has been contacted by many of the major news media in the U.S. The reaction of the liberals is clear, he says.

"In interviews [on Tuesday], I was matched up against representatives of the Kerry and Edwards presidential campaigns and all they wanted to talk about was the economy -- as if the president had pulled this issue out of thin air," Bauer explains. "While I aggressively defended the president's policies, I had to remind them about the lawlessness in San Francisco and the radical judges in Senator Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. You could almost see the fear in their eyes!"

A Tough and Welcome Decision
The founder of the American Family Association -- a group that has gathered more than a million signatures on an online petition in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment -- says the president did the right thing by proclaiming his support for such an amendment. Dr. Don Wildmon says President Bush made a difficult decision -- and he encourages Christians to stand by the president for making that decision.

Dr. Don Wildmon

"Now is time for the American public to get behind the president and throw their full support to him for taking this stand," Wildmon says. "This will be the issue in the upcoming elections, and it's time for people who believe in traditional marriage being between one man and one woman to weigh in on this issue. The future of civilization is depending upon this particular issue."

The president, he says, was facing pressure to take a strong stand on the issue. "I think he saw it as being politically expedient -- but at the same time, it's the right thing to do," the pro-family leader says. "It's an issue that both Democrats and Republicans don't want to deal with -- but it must be dealt with, and that is one of the reasons we elect officials: to make difficult decisions."

Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says he was glad to see the president take the step of leadership that he took. The impact, he says, will be tremendous. "This is a major step by the president, to embrace a constitutional amendment," he says. "He had hinted about doing it; now he's come out and said it. So it's a very welcome statement."

Bob Knight

Pro-Family Reservations
But Knight says there is also a little bit of concern in the president's stand. "He did leave some room for disagreement, though, because he said the states should be left to make 'other arrangements' for relationships -- and that might lead people to believe that he's okay to create civil unions, which is gay 'marriage' by another name," says the Institute's director.

Knight says it is not enough to protect only the word "marriage." He encourages the president, in the days ahead, "to clarify that marriage should be protected not just in name only, but the entire institution."

Concerned Women for America says because the president's remedy leaves the door open for states to make "other arrangements," it is therefore "defective" -- and CWA cannot support it. Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the pro-family group, doubts that any such caveat would go unchallenged.

"What makes anybody think that activist courts or renegade mayors [a reference to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom] will respect a state's choice to not provide marriage benefits to civil unions?" she asks. "Any state law, including a state constitutional amendment, can be trumped by a federal equal protection ruling by an activist judge."

CWA says it will work on Capitol Hill to strengthen the language of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Like Knight and LaRue, Tony Nassif of the Cedars Cultural and Educational Foundation finds a problem in the door that Bush left ajar. "It make look good on the surface to come out with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage while leaving the door open for civil unions," Nassiv says. "The problem is it marginalizes the religious aspect while at the same time giving the same rights and benefits of gay marriage to what they call 'civil unions.'"

Conservative icon Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation agrees with other supporters of traditional marriage in that the president's stand clarifies things a bit and will make it somewhat easier to push a constitutional amendment on Capitol Hill -- but he says it does not resolve a dispute among conservatives.

"He didn't support outlawing civil unions -- and the argument on the part of some of the groups is that you have to have legislation that outlaws civil unions," Weyrich says. That is why Weyrich is cautious about the amendment effort.

"It's going to be very difficult to get two-thirds votes on the Hill, particularly considering the position of major Democratic figures who have already come out against it," he says, noting that efforts to find someone in the U.S. Senate to sponsor that amendment failed. He does not think a sponsor for it can be found -- and he doubts moderates will be willing to support an amendment that bans both homosexual marriage and same-sex unions.