The Moderate Republican

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. The United States Senate this past week began
an important discussion about the meaning of marriage. Senators are
considering a constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental
institution of civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally
redefined.

This difficult debate was forced upon our country by a few activist judges
and local officials, who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning
of marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the state's highest court
have ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same
gender. In San Francisco, city officials issued thousands of marriage
licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family
code. Lawsuits in several states, including New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska,
and Oregon, are also attempting to overturn the traditional definition of
marriage by court order.

In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and
President Clinton signed it into law. That legislation defines marriage,
for purposes of federal law, as a union between a man and a woman, and
declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of
marriage. Yet an activist court that strikes down traditional marriage
would have little problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Overreaching judges could declare that all marriages recognized in
Massachusetts or San Francisco be recognized as marriages everywhere else.

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only
alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the
only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never
be undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other
choice.

A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in
marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law
can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach
that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of
an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens
the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary
definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from
its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is
lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for
example, has called marriage "an evolving paradigm." That sends a message
to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages
of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this
institution.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional
marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families
pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also
critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen
families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional
marriage will undermine the family structure.

On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions
run deep. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility
and decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices
heard. And that is exactly the purpose behind the constitutional amendment
process. American democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of
marriage in America.

The process has now begun in the Congress. I urge members of the House and
Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment that
defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as
husband and wife.