Wedding News

Bush would back constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Posted: 4:17 AM EST (0917 GMT) CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While calling for tolerance, President Bush said Tuesday he would support a constitutional amendment, if one is needed, that defines marriage as being between a man and woman.

" If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," Bush told ABC's Diane Sawyer.
The president -- in an apparent nod to some recognition of gay civil unions -- also said it would be the position of his administration that "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."

Overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to wed, ruling that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.
The court gave state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to marry.

The president criticized the court, saying it had overstepped its bounds.

"It was a very activist court in making the decision it made," Bush said. "As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch."

Bush said a constitutional amendment will be needed if "judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage."
In October, Bush said administration lawyers were looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Asked by Sawyer if gays were sinners, Bush responded: "We're all sinners. We're all sinners."

"No distinction?" she queried.

"I think we're all sinners. One of my favorite Bible verses says, 'Why would I take a speck out of your eye when I have a log in my own?' And having said that, however, I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. But I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person."
Bush counts many conservative Christians and Christian groups among his supporters.

Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 Posted: 12:04 PM EST (1704 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.
The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts' governor immediately denounced Tuesday's decision and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. But an openly gay U.S. congressman from the state said the amendment couldn't come before the voters before 2006, and by that time same-sex marriages will be law.
President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling.

" Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Bush stopped short of saying he would support an effort by some Republicans in Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, which would trump the Massachusetts court.

Analysts said the state Legislature could write laws legalizing same-sex marriages, or it could do nothing and let Tuesday's ruling go forward. Same-sex marriage opponents could also appeal Tuesday's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court during the next six months.

Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. (States determine marriage laws)

Governor suggests amendment drive

Legal observers said the Massachusetts case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont state Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state. (The ruling)

The Associated Press reported that many lawyers believe Tuesday's ruling applies strictly to marriage and that creating a separate class of domestic union -- such as civil unions -- would not be acceptable.

Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven gay couples who sued the state, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period, the AP reported.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the state Legislature would comply with the court's ruling "even if we don't agree with it." The governor said he would ask lawmakers to initiate a constitutional amendment process "that will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the commonwealth" about marriage.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, an openly gay congressman, said the process for doing so would delay a vote until 2006.

"My prediction is that when we in Massachusetts vote on this -- and we almost certainly will in 2006 -- the reality will have overtaken the fears," he said.
In a paper statement he released immediately after the ruling was released, Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-sex couples.
"Of course," he said, "we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

'Happiest day in our lives'

At a news conference after the ruling's release, the seven couples were elated with Tuesday's ruling.

"We have been together 32 years," said Gloria Bailey, whose partner, Linda Davies, proposed on the way to the conference. "Without a doubt this is the happiest day in our lives. The most important thing for us is knowing whatever comes ahead in the rest of our lives, we now know we can be at each others' sides."

Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."

"If the will of the people has anything to do with it ... the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children."

Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced their ruling Tuesday.

Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people. "If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority." Both supporters and opponents of the right of same-sex couples to marry had waited months for the decision. The court heard the case on March 4 and usually rules within 130 days of the hearing the case, but that deadline passed in July.

Survey shows opposition to same-sex marriage

Gay activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society.

In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. (Full story) On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.

But a majority of people surveyed in late October said gay marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.

The poll, taken October 24-26, surveyed 1,006 people and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.

The same poll showed sharp difference on the issue based on gender. According to the survey, 70 percent of men said no to legalizing gay marriage while 26 percent supported such unions. The survey showed that 53 percent of women opposed gay marriages, while 43 percent supported legalizing them. The question posed by gender had a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.