STATE OF THE UNION: LA Times, National Review Online

President Bush on Tuesday called on Americans to "defend the sanctity of marriage," and tiptoed toward suggesting a
constitutional amendment to block gay marriage but stopped just short of endorsing one.

Conservative groups, which form a key part of the president's political base, were pleased with the high-profile attention he gave the issue, but some said it was time for Bush to directly call on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment.

Instead, they heard murky, carefully parsed language. "On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be
heard," Bush said. "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the
constitutional process." ...

Bush accused "activist judges" of "redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."

more

National Review writers comment:

Rod Dreher: I didn't get to hear the whole SOTU because I was at a rubber-chicken dinner, but I did catch the president's statement on gay marriage when I walked out to the bar. Why'd he bother? He said that if activist judges try to impose gay marriage, then we'll have to think about a constitutional amendment to stop them. Excuse me, but what does the president think has already happened in Massachusetts? Look, I know Mr. Bush doesn't want to deal with this issue. I understand that. But there's no middle ground here, and the longer he delays taking a hard stand on it, the less social conservatives will trust him to hold the line.

I'd love to know what the Corner thinks the likelihood of Bush ultimately coming out behind the Federal Marriage Amendment is. If I had to lay money on it, I'd bet he's not going to support the thing.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Rod, I disagree. I was glad he said what he said as he said it. In recent days, there were some rumors he might come out and support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But considering that conservatives who are for an amendment aren't even together about what they want, I don't blame him for not endorsing anything. Plus, I like the message the courts vs. the people. (It's a situation we find ourselves in re other moral issues, of course.) He said this must be solved. Period. And that marriage is between a man and woman. Period. And that he'll support an amendment if it is the only alternative--which he probably thinks it is, shortly. Seems like the right message--I don’t want him being too enthused about adding to the Constitution. ...

John O'Sullivan: ...I agree with Madame K and disagree with Rod on the federal marriage amendment. It struck me as a qualified commitment but a strong one--and one furthermore that was rightly attached to a warning against cheap anti-gay sneers. I think the tone of it will have gone down well with Middle America which is important. If opposition to gay marriage morphs into general hostility to gays, it will lose. Bush took steps to avert that and perhaps to nullify any crudities that do get expressed. As to the future, if the courts go further in imposing radical change, the President will either have to redeem his pledge or lose significant support from traditionalists for his betrayal. As the election approaches, that will concentrate his mind wonderfully.

Incidentally, he might want to consider making a more general case against judicial imperialism--his rhetorical attack on it tonight went down well. ...
posted by Eve at 3:51 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home