NewsWrap for the week ending February 28, 2004 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #831, distributed 3-1-04) [Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Fenceberry, Rex Wockner, and Greg Gordon] Anchored this week by Cindy Friedman and Rick Watts U.S. President George W. Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America... Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." Republican U.S. President George W. Bush in a press conference this week crossed the line from vague statements regarding a need to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage to full-on support for barring gay and lesbian marriages by means of a Constitutional amendment. In a carefully worded seven-and-a-half-minute statement, he said there was a need for "clarity" in response to "confusion" caused by the recent ruling for marriage equality by Massachusetts' top court and by the issuing of marriage licenses to what he called "applicants of the same gender" in San Francisco and Sandoval County, New Mexico. He presented public sentiment against those moves by citing the House and Senate votes for DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and the enactment of similar legislation in 38 states to date. He noted the possible vulnerability of DOMA to a challenge based on the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause requiring states to recognize each other's legal proceedings, always using the term "activist judges" to describe courts' recognition of equality. He called marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization," claimed repeatedly that those seeking marriage equality were out to "change" it, and declared that, "Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." He concluded: "America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency." Currently, the U.S. Constitution leaves marriage standards entirely in the hands of the states. There is no reason to believe that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that's been introduced in the Congress meets Bush's stated standard of "leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." To the contrary, many believe it would actually void and prohibit all civil unions and domestic partnerships. And while U.S. Constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, and the President plays no direct role in the process whatsoever. National gay and lesbian organizations were uniformly outraged, with some activists labeling Bush's announcement a declaration of war. Many accused Bush of violating his 2000 election campaign self-description as "a uniter, not a divider." Many applied the term he's often applied to marriage -- "sacred" -- to describe the U.S. Constitution, as they demanded it not be sullied by a prescription for discrimination. Top Democrats echoed those sentiments, with U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy declaring that Bush will "go down in history as the first pr esident to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution." But while Democrats clearly oppose a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriages, they generally offer little support for actually legalizing those marriages, preferring instead to endorse more benefits for gay and lesbian couples under some other name. Leading Democratic Presidential hopeful and U.S. Senator from Massachusetts John Kerry was quick to denounce Bush's announcement as a move to create a "wedge issue" and as a distraction from more substantive issues such as employment. But Kerry has repeatedly said he does not support same-gender marriages, although he was one of the few Senators who voted against DOMA. This week he clarified that he personally supports amending the Massachusetts state constitution to prohibit them -- as long as gay and lesbian couples could also be guaranteed equal legal status. That drew considerable criticism from gay and lesbian organizations. Of course Massachusetts lawmakers are in the midst of considering such amendments, with their Constitutional Convention scheduled to resume in mid-March. In fact it's widely believed that federal lawmakers will not advance any such measure in 2004, as Republicans are far from united on the issue. Some staunch conservatives are loathe to amend the Constitution, while some moderates fear to appear bigoted. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas declared he would not "take a knee-jerk reaction" to the President's announcement and said, "There is no particular reason for haste." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee is considering scheduling a floor vote for just before the Democratic National Convention in late July -- but Senate Democrats believe they have the votes to block the amendment. Two weeks before the President's announcement, a national meeting of the American Bar Association adopted a resolution opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Without either endorsing or opposing same-gender marriages themselves, the largest attorneys group in the U.S. declared that regulation of marriage should be left in the hands of the states. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, the man who ordered county clerks to begin issuing California marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples shortly before Valentine's Day, lambasted the President for "choos[ing] a path that runs counter to our nation's most cherished values of freedom and justice." Newsom said it was clear Bush had promised the religious right to support the amendment well before San Francisco marriages began. The Bush administration seems to be retaliating. The "San Francisco Chronicle" learned at the end of this week that the Social Security Administration issued a nationwide order to reject all requests to change names on Social Security accounts based on marriage licenses issued by San Francisco -- and that's regardless of the gender of the parties involved. But gay and lesbian marriages will continue in San Francisco at least awhile longer. As this week ended, California's Democratic Attorney-General Bill Lockyer filed a petition with the state Supreme Court, calling on the justices to stop San Francisco from issuing licenses to same-gender couples and to nullify the marriages already performed there. But the state's high court refused to issue an immediate injunction to that effect. Lockyer expressed confidence that the court will rule against the marriages, but in fact the panel has not yet indicated that it will actually take up his petition. The California Supreme Court -- which pioneered legalization of interracial marriages a half-century ago -- generally prefers that cases be heard first by trial and appellate courts. There are already several cases in progress in lower state courts. Inspired by San Francisco Mayor Newsom's stand for equality, the Green Party mayor of the New York college town of New Paltz Jason West personally began marrying gays and lesbians this week. By the end of the first day, marriages of about 25 same-gender couples had been "solemnized," as West puts it, and more than 350 other couples had signed up on a waiting list for the coming week. There's considerable legal opinion that the gender-neutral language of New York state law does not explicitly deny these marriages, although it doesn't specifically allow them either. Disagreeing is Republican Governor George Pataki, who believes it clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The state Health Department, which manages marriage licensing, asked state Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer to intervene to stop New Paltz. But he did not immediately issue an opinion, stating instead that, "The validity of the marriages and the legality of the mayor's action will be determined in due course in the courts." The Ulster County District Attorney is awaiting a police report before acting on his understanding that one of two laws is being broken: either a clerk issued marriage licenses outside state guidelines, or West as a public official knowingly married couples without licenses. The clerk's office says it has not been issuing licenses. Instead the couples received affidavits, but West's attorney maintains the marriages are nonetheless legal for having been "solemnized" by a public official. West says he's not afraid to be arrested and that he's tried to comply with the law. And finally... Democratic Congressmember from Washington state Jim McDermott this week made a statement on the House floor entitled, "Codifying 'Biblical Principles' of Marriage": "Mr. Speaker," he said, "the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to 'pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.' With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about. Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28... A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13... and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law. Deuteronomy 25:5-10."