Bush weighs marriage amendment

The White House yesterday said President Bush is willing to consider a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which some congressional Republicans say is the only effective option.

Both the president and congressional Republicans are awaiting key state-court decisions before they decide the best course of action. The White House said yesterday that Mr. Bush wants to wait for court rulings in Massachusetts and New Jersey before deciding whether to support a proposed constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

That same sentiment came from Capitol Hill, where Senate Republican leadership aides said lawmakers are also awaiting such rulings — especially an impending decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which both sides of the issue expect will legalize same-sex “marriage.”

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said a constitutional amendment “is something to look at in this context. But we need to see where these court cases come out, and there’s speculation there may be some court rulings soon.”

But Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, said he thinks the solution to protect traditional marriage “needs to be the constitutional amendment [because] I don’t think you can solve it statutorily.”

A Senate Republican leadership aide predicted congressional Republicans and the White House would eventually agree on the need for an amendment.

“Frankly, all the other options come up short,” the aide said.

Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, have voiced their support for a constitutional amendment. An aide to Mr. Frist said members of the House and Senate are also exploring ways to defend traditional marriage.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said one option being discussed is to take a statutory approach and revisit the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which states that for federal purposes, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Mr. Cornyn said the law may need to be strengthened, depending on the outcome of state court rulings.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado Republican, has sponsored a constitutional amendment in the House that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, but would leave it up to states to decide the specific benefits of marriage.

States could opt to bestow some benefits on same-sex couples, but this would have to be done through civil unions — not marriage — and it would have to be decided by state legislatures, not the courts.

“The American people overwhelmingly support the defense of marriage,” Mrs. Musgrave said in a statement, praising the president’s endorsement of traditional marriage at a Wednesday press conference. “This is evidenced in many ways, but particularly by the number of e-mails and telephone calls I receive in my office. … President Bush is right to make this a national priority and to begin taking action in the defense of marriage.”

An aide to Mrs. Musgrave said a Senate companion to her amendment, which has 78 co-sponsors in the House, will likely be introduced soon.

Story Continues →