President Bush indicated in a Washington Post interview that
he may not push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because the
Senate is unlikely to pass it until there is a successful legal challenge to DOMA,
which a federal judge upheld in a ruling Wednesday. (Photo by AP)
MORE INFO MORE INFO Excerpts from the Washington Post’s Jan. 16 interview
with President Bush:
Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital
to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?
President Bush: You know, I think that the
situation in the last session — well, first of all, I do believe it’s
necessary; many in the Senate didn’t, because they believe DOMA [the Defense
of Marriage Act] will — is in place, but — they know DOMA is in
place, and they’re waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a
constitutional challenge.
Post: Do you plan on trying to — using the White
House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to —
Bush: The point is, is that senators have
made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen.
I’d take their admonition seriously.
Post: But until that changes, you want it?
Bush: Well, until that changes, nothing will
happen in the Senate. Do you see what I’m saying?
President Bush angered some conservative supporters this week by hinting that
he would not push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because
of Senate opposition to the measure. In a related development, a judge in Florida
issued what is believed to be the first ruling upholding the federal Defense of
Marriage Act.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Bush said that while an amendment
is “necessary,” it is unlikely to move forward as long as the federal
DOMA is deemed constitutional.
Bush avoided the question of whether he would be willing to spend any political
capital to advocate for a marriage amendment, adding that “nothing will
happe
n” because “senators have made it clear” that DOMA is “constitutional.”
“I’d take their admonition seriously,” Bush said of senators
opposed to an amendment.
Within hours of the Washington Post story hitting the newsstands on Jan. 16,
the White House dispatched key Bush adviser Dan Bartlett to the Sunday morning
talk shows to clarify the president’s remarks.
“He was just pointing to the legislative realities. That doesn’t
mean he is not willing to spend political capital,” said Bartlett on Fox
News Sunday. “He is, he will, and he will continue to talk about why he
thinks it is important that we have an amendment. He was saying that the DOMA
situation, the Defense of Marriage Act, might be the changing force in the United
States Senate but that’s not going to change his views or change his desire
to help persuade people to make that decision today.”
Last July, the Senate voted 50-48 against bringing the Federal Marriage Amendment
up for a direct vote. And the FMA was defeated last September in the U.S. House
of Representatives after proponents failed to garner a two-thirds majority in
favor of the amendment.
Some have suggested that Bush’s refusal to say whether or not he will
strongly push for an amendment contradicts a campaign promise to social conservatives
that he would be a leader in the effort to ban same-sex marriage.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in
a statement that the “moral values” voters who backed Bush on Nov.
2 are demanding presidential leadership on the issue.
“Freshly equipped with the demands of the American people, the president
should lead the United States Senate in moving ahead to check the pending judicial
assault on marriage,” Perkins said.
“While Social Security and tort reform are important initiatives, there
was far less outcry for reform of these laws from the American public. No doubt
there are many in the Senate, even within the president’s own party who
oppose such policy initiatives; however, there is no evidence such indifference
or opposition is deterring the president from including them in his second term
agenda. He should have at least the same resolve if not more to protect the
institution of marriage.”
Conflicting messages?
Gay Republican activist Carl Schmid said the president’s words, not Bartlett’s,
matter the most and that it is important for those opposed to a constitutional
amendment to “seize on this opportunity.”
“I know the right wing will be going very public with this and it’s
really important that people who are opposed to the amendment seize on this
moment,” Schmid said. “I know there’s some confusion on the
messages coming out of the White House, but the only thing that really counts
is what the president says. If it comes up again for a vote, we can now use
the president’s words to help defeat it again.”
But Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, said
the statements from Bush and Bartlett, “sadly, might be another example
of Bush saying one thing and doing another.”
“What strikes me as most troubling is that the president doesn’t
backtrack on anything in his agenda but this,” Stachelberg said. “He
continues to play politics with the lives of gay and lesbian families. We have
to continue to remind our community and others that when it comes to GLBT issues,
this is a president who says one thing and does another and backtracks when
it comes to our lives.”
Chris Barron, political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay partisan
group, said Bush’s recognition of the legislative realities surrounding
an amendment banning gay marriage offers hope that Bush’s second term
will focus on more pressing issues, such as reform of Social Security, immigration
and the tax system.
Fla. judge upholds DOMA
In a related development, a federal judge in Florida on Wednesday upheld DOMA,
dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage
recognized there, according to the Associated Press.
Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge
James S. Moody as an important victory, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal.
“This is a legal shot heard ’round the world,” said attorney
Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women’s behalf. “But we
are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme
Court and I have said that since the day I filed it.”
Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage
Act, attorneys said Wednesday’s ruling was the first by a federal judge
on a direct challenge to the law.
The plaintiffs, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years
who live in Tampa, were married in Massachusetts in July. They wanted their
union recognized in Florida, where state law specifically bans same-sex marriages.
The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because
it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.
Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men
and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate
interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
