President Bush has finally uttered the words: He supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

For months, religious conservatives have been pressuring Mr. Bush to state unequivocally that he believes the US Constitution needs to be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The issue has reached a crisis point for opponents of gay marriage, with Massachusetts due to start marrying same-sex couples in May and San Francisco already doing so. In a week in which Bush's reelection campaign had already shifted into a higher gear, the gay marriage announcement must be seen through a political lens, analysts say.

"It was inevitable; he had to do it," says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "He's very much concerned about the demobilization of his socially conservative base. The Republicans believe the closeness of the election in 2000 was the result of social conservatives being insufficiently enthusiastic about him. He needs to activate that constituency."

Significantly, Bush did not endorse specific language in his announcement, a sign that actually amending the Constitution will be easier said than done. Support in Congress for the leading option, drafted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) of Colorado, has dwindled of late, because it allows states to recognize civil unions if they choose. That option is unacceptable to social conservatives.

Still, in a signal that the culture wars will be a central feature of the 2004 election - especially with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts as the likely Democratic nominee - Bush conveyed a sense of urgency in his comments. Not only are Massachusetts and California on the cutting edge of the debate, even the small town of Bernalillo, N.M., entered the fray last week when the county clerk's office began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Further, several big-city mayors have stated support for gay marriage.

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty," Bush said in remarks delivered Tuesday morning from the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

Because it is an election year, and the issue is so charged, there is virtually no chance Congress will pass an amendment this year. Though a solid majority of the public opposes gay marriage, Americans are evenly split over whether to amend the Constitution.

"Americans have a bias against constitutional amendments for just about anything," says Jim Guth, a political scientist at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

In recent decades, efforts to amend the Constitution to protect women's rights, ban flag burning, and allow school prayer have failed. The last time the Constitution was amended was in 1992; the 27th Amendment, regarding the regulation of congressional pay, had lain dormant for more than 200 years before becoming part of the Constitution.

In his remarks, Bush referred to the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as the legal union between a man and a woman. President Clinton signed the law in 1996, after it was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress (though opposed by Senator Kerry, who called it "intolerant" of gays). That plus similar "defense of marriage" laws or amendments in 38 states express "an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage," Bush said.

Page: 1 | 2