For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 10, 2004
President's Radio Address
Audio
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.
|
Radio
Address
|
Radio Interviews
|
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.
Thank you for listening.
END
|