Simone Lawson
In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, stating that the preservation of marriage was a matter of national importance. This came after Massachusetts became the first state to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and thousands of gay marriages were performed at San Francisco's City Hall. Bush's decision was based on the belief that marriage has cultural, religious, and natural roots that must not be severed, and that activist judges and local officials were attempting to redefine marriage. However, polls at the time suggested that even many voters who opposed gay marriage did not support amending the Constitution to prohibit it.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Amendment | To define marriage as a union between one man and one woman |
| Reasoning | To prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever |
| Support | Republican Party, President Clinton |
| Opposition | Gay rights groups, some conservative Republicans, Bernie Sanders |
| Outcome | Not passed |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
George W Bush's endorsement of an amendment banning gay marriage
On February 24, 2004, former US President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. He described marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" and as "the most enduring human institution, honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith".
Bush's endorsement came in response to the actions of the Massachusetts high court, which had legalized gay marriages in the state. The former president argued that the court's decision and similar actions by local authorities would undermine the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and stated that states were not required to recognize a marriage from another state if it was between persons of the same sex.
In his endorsement, Bush emphasized the importance of protecting the traditional definition of marriage, stating that it should not be redefined by activist judges. He believed that marriage could not be severed from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. According to Bush, the preservation of marriage was a matter of national importance that required decisive and democratic action.
The proposed amendment was controversial and sparked intense debate in the United States. While Bush's administration and many others supported the amendment, there was also significant opposition. Some argued that amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage was unnecessary and harmful, and that issues like the economy and foreign policy were more important priorities. Despite Bush's endorsement and efforts, the proposed amendment did not pass, and same-sex marriage was eventually legalized nationwide in 2015 by the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Federalism: Constitutional Amendments and State Guarantees
You may want to see also
The Defense of Marriage Act
The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. The congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states expressed an overwhelming consensus for protecting the institution of marriage. Support for the Act was bipartisan, though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it.
Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary" and later claimed that he signed it reluctantly due to veto-proof congressional majorities in support of the bill. He also wanted to avoid associating himself with the unpopular cause of same-sex marriage and to defuse momentum for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Despite his criticism and reluctance, Clinton signed the bill into law in September 1996, and the same year, he ran ads on Christian radio stations nationwide promoting his signing of the legislation.
The implications of DOMA were that it denied many benefits and recognition to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples enjoyed. These benefits included but were not limited to over 1,000 federal protections and privileges such as access to a spouse's employment benefits, the recognition of the marriage itself, the rights of inheritance, joint tax returns and exemptions, and the right to cohabit together in college or military housing.
In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples because he found DOMA to be vulnerable to judicial activism. He called upon Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution defining and protecting marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Amendments: Our Constitution's Progressive Evolution
You may want to see also
The Clinton presidency and the Defense of Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The Act banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. It further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.
Clinton had criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary" and complained about how the Republicans were using the marriage issue against him during the campaign season. However, he signed the bill into law in September 1996. Clinton later claimed that he signed DOMA reluctantly due to veto-proof congressional majorities in support of the bill and to avoid associating himself with the unpopular cause of same-sex marriage. He also believed that signing the bill would prevent a proposed amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage.
The 1996 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA, referencing only Section 2 of the act, which allowed states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages conducted by other states. The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or same-sex marriage. In a June 1996 interview, Clinton reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage, stating that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman.
Years later, Clinton called the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act "incompatible with our Constitution" and asked the Supreme Court to overturn it. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the US Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages conducted by the states. In 2022, DOMA was repealed by the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden.
AOC's Misstep: Constitution Amendment Claim
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling
In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the US to allow same-sex couples to marry. This was the result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health. The ruling, decided by a vote of 4-3, held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognise same-sex marriage.
The case was brought before the Court by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships, and four of the couples were raising children. GLAD argued that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated Massachusetts law.
The Court recognised that civil unions create a separate and unequal status and that marriage is a fundamental legal right and a personal choice, not something that should be decided by the state. The Court's decision stated that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
Despite numerous attempts to delay or reverse the ruling, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date. This decision inspired a multistate effort led by Attorney General Maura Healey to support the right to marry, arguing that laws barring same-sex couples from marrying are unconstitutional. In June 2013, the US Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional, relying on many of the arguments developed in the Commonwealth's case.
Amending the Constitution: Our Nation's Enduring Strength
You may want to see also
The San Francisco City Hall gay marriages
In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. This was in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 ruling that legalised same-sex marriage. Bush stated that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman, was vulnerable. He argued that the preservation of marriage was of national importance and that government recognition and protection of marriage served the interests of all.
During this time, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This directive was based on Newsom's interpretation of the Constitution of California's equal protection clause. From February 12 to March 11, 2004, about 4,000 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco. This event upstaged the Massachusetts marriages that occurred two months later, reflecting on the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.
The actions of San Francisco officials were criticised by some, including California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who ordered state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to obtain a judicial resolution. Several organisations also filed legal actions against the city, arguing that the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was illegal. The Supreme Court of California eventually ordered a halt to the practice on March 11, 2004, and voided all the licenses that had been issued.
The legal dispute in San Francisco contributed to the 2008 In re Marriage Cases ruling by the California Supreme Court, which ultimately legalised same-sex marriage in the state. While the San Francisco same-sex weddings in 2004 sparked controversy and legal challenges, they also played a significant role in advancing the struggle for gay rights and challenging the traditional definition of marriage.
Amending the Constitution: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, George Bush did not amend the constitution about marriage. In 2004, he called on Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
George Bush wanted to amend the constitution about marriage to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever. He believed that attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
There was mixed reaction to George Bush's proposal. Some agreed with him that marriage should be protected, while others, including conservative Republicans, did not favor a constitutional amendment. Polls showed that even many voters who opposed gay marriage did not support amending the Constitution to prohibit it.
