here we go!

[nibot]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — President Bush said today he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, declaring that such a measure was the only way to protect the status of marriage between man and woman, which he called "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

In an announcement fraught with social, legal and political implications, Mr. Bush urged Congress to act on the amendment quickly and send it on to the state legislatures. Quick action is essential, he said, to bring clarity to the law and protect husband-and-wife marriages from a few "activist judges." — The New York Times, today.

The first ten amendments specify the rights and privileges we consider universal. The following seventeen amendments clarify the functioning of the government (election of the president and vice president, the voting age, presidential term limits and succession, election of senators, income tax, etc), forbid and then allow the consumption of alcohol, end slavery, and establish women's suffrage.

President Bush would have a 28th amendment that would explicitly deny equal rights to a specific, targeted group. I hope everybody sees that this is serious business.

P.S. Check out this rhetoric!

``After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. ...

I first interpreted that as "two centuries of American jurisprudence and two millennia of human experience.. but maybe that leap was left as an exercise for the listener.

Indeed, his speech is a rallying cry that works both ways:

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts.

In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

Comments

[squarkz.livejournal.com]

"quick action is essential" because he won't be in office much longer.