In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President George W. Bush suggested he would support a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage, and he praised the 1996 passage of the Defense of Marriage Act as a step toward “defending the sanctity of marriage.”
Bush also reaffirmed the act’s definition of marriage as “a union between a man and a woman” and said if “activist judges” continue to rule in favor of same-sex marriages and domestic unions he would support a constitutional amendment to ban them.
Currently, the U.S. Congress is debating an amendment that would prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, according to an article in The Washington Times. It would also allow states to ignore civil unions created in other states.
Both Bush’s speech and the pending amendment are causing a stir on campus.
Chicora Martin , director of LGBT Educational and Support Services, said she thought a constitutional amendment would infringe on the rights of the states, which have traditionally regulated marriage.
“I’m surprised that more states haven’t stepped up and said, ‘Actually, you can’t do that,’” Martin said. “I think it follows a trend of Bush trying to reinforce his philosophy of religion on everyone in the United States.”
Martin said an amendment would violate one of the “core tenets of our Constitution, which is the separation between church and state” and said it would create “Constitutional discrimination.”
College Republicans Chairman Jarrett White said his group is “100 percent behind the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman,” and the group supports a Constitutional amendment. White said marriage is a sacred union created by God and the issue of same-sex marriage should be a federal issue and not left to the states.
“You can take if from the biggest states’-rights guy on this campus,” he said. “It should be a federal issue. It should all be the same.”
Father Reginald Martin, a Roman Catholic priest at the St. Thomas More Newman Center near campus, agreed with White that marriage is a permanent, exclusive union between a man and a woman, but said he doesn’t see the need for a Constitutional amendment.
“I think that individuals should be allowed to make whatever sort of economic unions they want,” Martin said. “I believe the state must honor those arrangements. I think the president, whom I admire a great deal, is simply making himself look silly.”
Dan Bryant, a senior minister for the First Christian Church in Eugene who has performed marriage ceremonies for 20 years, said he respects the president but sees the issue in terms of basic human rights.
“I don’t support the president’s position,” Bryant said. “I have no difficulty with the issue of same-sex marriage. To me, it’s an issue of loving partnerships and supporting relationships that are loving and healthy.”
Garrett Epps , a Constitutional law professor at the University School of Law, explained that passage of any such amendment would be very unusual because no amendment currently exists that limits rights. He said decisions surrounding family law and marriage have “been more or less the law of the states.”
Dominick Vetri, a law professor who teaches gay and lesbian rights at the law school, pointed out that Bush said the nation should consider an amendment only if courts continue to rule in favor of same-sex marriages; however, he thinks it is “virtually inevitable” that courts will continue to do so.
Vetri also said he disapproved of the president’s attempt to appease gay and lesbian populations when Bush said, “The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.”
“I thought it was such a snide way of putting it,” Vetri said. “It certainly wouldn’t make gay people feel more comfortable with Bush and his attitude. He’s not a guy that’s a balanced guy. It’s just a political game for him.”
Vetri said if the push for an anti-gay marriage amendment is successful, supporters of gay marriage would respond with a push for domestic partnership amendments similar to those in Vermont and California.
“It actually can push the gay-rights cause more rapidly than otherwise would have happened,” Vetri said.
Martin agreed, saying Tuesday’s speech may actually rally more people to get involved in the debate.
“I think a lot of LGBT people are trying to get behind more progressive candidates,” she said. “This may inspire more queer people to get involved.”