George
W. Bush
Weekly Radio Address: The Gay Marriage Amendment
Washington, DC
June 3, 2006
Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will
begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the
United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet
with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family
and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans,
Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this
amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage
Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it
to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored
and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of
experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to
love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the
stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural,
religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on
society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the
interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their
lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social
institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the
courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both
through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress
approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan
majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it
into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments
to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of
marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state
constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in
our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an
aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004,
state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have
overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a
federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning
same-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The
Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept
another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by
activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might
have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean
that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges
in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what
their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question
requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound
importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts
have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment
that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage
from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make
their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A
constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue,
because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and
then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American
deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us
have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward
one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A
constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to
American families and American society in the hands of the American
people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders,
should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.
<< Go Back
|