SOTU in Redux: Is Bush’s Support of a FMA Wavering?
I know that the President’s SOTU address is now old news, but, I haven’t had time to post my “two cents” on President Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) snub.
Comparing President Bush’s 2005 SOTU with his 2006 SOTU, Bush stepped back from directly supporting the FMA, completely ommitting any reference of support:
2005
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
2006
Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They’re concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.
The difference in rhetoric is not a distinction without a difference. In 2005, Bush explicitly stated his support for a FMA. Yet, in 2006 Bush relegates marriage to a half a sentence, lumping it alongside scandalous conduct by Washington politicians. Bush implies that while activist courts still threaten to replace traditional marriage with same-sex marriage, the FMA is not part of the solution.
Bush’s decison–or perhaps that of his speechwriter(s)–to sidestep the FMA raises a gentle suspicion that Bush’s support of the FMA might be waning. One wonders how much VP Cheney’s nonsupport of the FMA in method (believes the decision should be left to individual state legislatures) or in priniciple (does not favor a complete ban on same-sex marriage) factors into Bush’s apparent neglect of supporting or encouraging the FMA’s passage. Looking back at the 2004 SOTU, Bush’s 2006 snub of support for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage is disconcerting:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act . . . That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their abitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
President Bush plays a crucial part in the constitutional amendment process he explicitly refered to in 2004 and 2005. Similar to Bush’s strident defense of wiretapping American communicants of Al Qaeda, Bush should vociferously urge Congress to pass the FMA when introduced again in the House and Senate. That is, if he still believes America should “defend the sanctity of marriage.” By failing to pass the FMA, America places its hope in an unelected branch of government which if unchecked by the masses, will redefine marriage, furthering acerbating the problems of family that threaten to cripple our nation’s social fabric. Please, Mr. President, don’t cloister your support for the FMA.