President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
Remarks by the President
The Roosevelt Room
10:43 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. 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.
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.
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.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in
each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of
every other state. 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. The union of a man and
woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and
encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of
experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and
wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children
and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural
roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by
recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the
states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and
protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state
legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal
arrangements other than marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in
the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does
not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social
institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect
the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these
responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a
manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with
kindness and goodwill and decency.