Spring Break
Bush's proposed amendment draws varied campus reactions
Claire Taylor
Daily Staff Writer
- Page 1 of 1
In his speech, according to a White House press release, Bush cited the Defense of Marriage act, passed by Congress and signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton in 1996, which also stated marriage is a heterosexual ritual, as proof that the majority of United States citizens do not believe in same-sex marriage.
Bush named the issuances of marriage licenses in San Francisco and a county in New Mexico, along with recent court rulings in Massachusetts, as being in "defiance of the law" and said it is likely our country will see more "confusion" over the legality of same-sex marriage if a clear legal stance is not taken.
"Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country," Bush said.
He said the amendment would "fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."
This amendment, should it come to fruition, would create an "unstoppable way to ensure there will never be same-sex marriages" in the United States, said Ken Nuger, associate professor of political science at San Jose State University.
He said the passage of the proposed amendment would nullify any existing marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, though he said the amendment isn't necessary for the license to be revoked.
Wiggsy Sivertsen, director of counseling services at SJSU, believes that Bush's proposal is nothing more than a means of stirring up the right wing.
She said it is an "incredibly disingenuous, opportunist move on his part" to bring together a group of people who have made it their "number one organizing effort this year to defeat gay marriage."
In his speech, Bush said the Massachusetts judges who stated they will begin allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May are "activists."
Sivertsen said she believes Bush added a negative tone to the word "activist," when some judges in the past have been pioneers in initiating change.
"But an activist judge was Brown vs. the Board of Education," Sivertsen said. "(Bush) would call the judges who supported Roe v. Wade activists."
She said the proposed amendment would itself be a violation of the Constitution.
"To use the Constitution of the United States to discriminate against a class of people who are citizens, who pay taxes, who run businesses, who teach in our schools ... to take that class of people, simply based on their sexual orientation, and say that they are not equal citizens, and to use the Constitution to do that, is truly a blight on the American conscience," Sivertsen said.
Siversten said the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "not designed to discriminate against individuals and to deny individuals equal rights in the nation."
Ryan Kelley, co-chair of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Allies at SJSU, likened the proposed amendment to some discriminatory laws of the past.
"It's like saying just because you're a different ethnicity than white, we have reason to discriminate against you," he said. "And I think a long time ago, we realized that such things are unacceptable."
Other students at SJSU also said they disagree with Bush's proposal.
Mark Sweeney, a post-baccalaureate physics student, said the amendment is a "political ploy" on Bush's part because it is an election year.
"What two people do is their own business," he said.
He continued that, since heterosexuals have the right, there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Junior sociology major Letricia Cole also feels that the amendment would be discriminating against homosexuals.
"Who cares if they get married? They're just two human beings," she said.
Kelley said he feels protecting marriage involves allowing every individual the equal opportunity to wed.
"I would say that same-sex marriage is not a threat - it's further protection to make sure that families don't fade away," he said.
Other students on campus feel there may be negative consequences from the continued weddings of same-sex couples.
"I think a marriage is between a man and a woman," said Helen Tran, a senior graphic design major.
She said she wonders what effect the same-sex marriages will have on society.
For an amendment to become law, Nuger said both houses of Congress must each have a two-thirds majority vote to add the amendment, and three-fourths of the state legislatures - 38 of the 50 states - must also vote for the amendment.
He said there is no definite timeline for an amendment to go through Congress and the state legislatures, and it is unlikely the amendment would become law any time soon.
"You can force the idea on people," he said, "but there is no way you can make them accept the idea."
Kelley also doubts the amendment will be added to the Constitution but believes, if it were to pass, it wouldn't do so before 2006.
The last amendment added to the Constitution, Nuger said, was the 27th amendment, enacted in 1992, which guarantees that congressional officials cannot receive pay raises until they serve for one year.
Be the first to comment on this story