Gay
marriage amendment could play role in election
By
Jane Black
DC BUREAU
WASHINGTON
(U-Wire) -- President Bush recently voiced
support for a constitutional amendment that
would ban gay marriages, pleasing conservative
followers and giving needed ammunition to
the Democratic Party in the 2004 presidential
election.
In
his State of the Union speech last Tuesday,
loaded with conservative values, Bush indicated
his support for an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution that would limit marriage as
between a man and a woman. He suggested
that this option would only be needed if
judges overruled existing federal and state
Defense of Marriage laws.
"Activist
judges, however, have begun redefining marriage
by court order, without regard for the will
of the people and their elected representatives...if
judges insist on forcing their arbitrary
will upon the people, the only alternative
left to the people would be the constitutional
process," said Bush in his speech.
Many
of those critical of Bush's speech believe
that his statement on a constitutional amendment
was motivated in part to appease his conservative
base of supporters. Bush also may have been
motivated by recent steps taken by states
to pave the way for the legality of homosexual
marriages. Last November the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court held the state's
same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional,
giving the state legislature six months
to rewrite the state's marriage laws.
"There
is a very strong argument that this is a
state matter... even some prominent conservatives
have already written articles that a constitutional
amendment would be a bad idea because marriage
has traditionally been regulated by the
states," said Jonathan R. Siegel J.D.,
an expert in federal and state government
relations.
Republican
lawmakers in at least eight states are pushing
for new legislation in the hopes of preventing
other states from adopting stances similar
to Massachusetts. Constitutional amendments
banning gay marriage have already been proposed
in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan,
Oklahoma, and Virginia.
"Our
nation must defend the sanctity of marriage,"
said Bush, referring to the traditional
way that marriage has been looked upon in
the U.S.
The
Defense of Marriage Act exists in 37 states.
Former President Clinton was able to swiftly
pass the act through congress in 1996. The
Act strictly defines marriage as a legal
union of one man and one woman and gives
states the option not to recognize same-sex
marriages, even if they were recognized
in other states.
Many
legal experts believe that the likelihood
of getting such an amendment ratified before
the next presidential election is impossible.
"There
are a lot of barriers for amending the constitution
because it is such a fundamental document,"
said Todd D. Peterson, J.D., an expert in
Structural Constitutional law and the federal
judicial system. "The framers decided
they didn't want it changed unless there
was an overwhelming consensus that it needed
to be changed."
No
state currently allows full-fledged same-sex
marriages. Vermont recognizes civil unions,
which gives "marriage-style" benefits
to gay couples. New Jersey, Hawaii and California
all grant some rights to same-sex couples
who are registered as domestic partners.
A
complication of anti-gay marriage laws is
that under the "full faith and credit
clause" of the Constitution, states
are required to recognize one another's
legal proceedings. Many argue that under
this clause, a same-sex couple accorded
certain rights in Vermont could go to another
state and argue that their rights should
be recognized, giving state laws a national
effect.
"What
matters is whether Republicans decide to
make it a big issue. It takes a two-thirds
vote to pass it and right now they don't
have two-thirds. I'm guessing Democrats
wouldn't go along with it. Realistically,
I don't think it would happen this year
or anytime soon," said Siegel.
|
