Say Anything Blog

The President has caused a lot of anger over his support for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as between one man and one woman. A lot of people have been criticizing the President for this move, but I think he's got the right idea, he's just taking it a little too far.

Let's look at what the President actually had to say on the subject:

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

Bush makes a very good point. When watching the media or reading the news a person gets the idea that there's a large portion of the population that wants gay marriage. I think that's a false perception, as the President points out. Either there aren't that many supporters for gay marriage or the people who support it aren't voting.

The President goes on to say that we must take action in order to protect the people's right to define marriage within the borders of their state.

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.

Here's where I have a problem with what the President is saying. He complains about "activist judges" dictating this situation to the people, so his solution is to add an amendment to the constitution that dictates the situation to the entire nation? That's not exactly the type of solution I was hoping for.

The issue of gay marriage is one that should be decided by the people, obviously. And where are the people best represented? The state legislatures, of course. Bush's amendment shouldn't be an out-right ban on gay marriage. What it should be is a requirement for states to pass a law either supporting gay marriage or banning it. Let each state decide if it wants gay marriage or not and let the people vote on it. By delegating the specific right to decide this issue to the states through the constitution we should effectively avoid the constant court battles.