Bush's speech on Marriage Protection Amendment
(June 3,2006)Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate ona constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United Statesas the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with acoalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family andcivic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans,Democrats, and independents who've come together to support thisamendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the MarriageProtection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and sendit to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honoredand encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages ofexperience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wifeto love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children andthe stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural,religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence onsociety. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves theinterests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they livetheir lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamentalsocial institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not bythe courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, boththrough their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congressapproved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisanmajorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signedit into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approvedamendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditionaldefinition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either astate constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as theunion of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broadconsensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made anaggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004,state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York haveoverturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, afederal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banningsame-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. TheDefense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to acceptanother state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned byactivist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state mighthave to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would meanthat every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judgesin Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter whattheir own laws or state constitutions say. This national questionrequires a national solution, and on an issue of such profoundimportance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courtshave left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendmentthat the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriagefrom being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to maketheir own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. Aconstitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue,because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate andthen ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every Americandeserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of ushave a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency towardone another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. Aconstitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical toAmerican families and American society in the hands of the Americanpeople, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders,should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.
bipartisan : 兩黨的
overturn :to invalidate or reverse (a decision) by legal means（推翻；否決）
页:
[1]