For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 3, 2006

President's Radio Address

President's Radio Address   Audio   En Español

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.

Thank you for listening.

END

Printer-Friendly Version   Email this page to a friend

• Afghanistan
• Africa
• Budget Management
• Defense
• Economy
• Education
• Energy
• Environment
• Global Diplomacy
• Health Care
• Homeland Security
• Immigration
• International Trade
• Iraq
• Judicial Nominations
• Middle East
• National Security
• Veterans

more issues

News

• Current News
• Press Briefings
• Proclamations
• Executive Orders
• Radio
• Setting the Record Straight

more news

October 2007   |   September 2007   |   July 2007   |   July 2007   |   June 2007   |   May 2007   |   April 2007   |   March 2007   |   February 2007

News by Date

•   |   February 2007
•   |   January 2007
•   |   December 2006
•   |   November 2006
•   |   October 2006
•   |   September 2006
•   |   August 2006
•   |   July 2006
•   |   June 2006
•   |   May 2006
•   |   April 2006
•   |   March 2006
•   |   February 2006
•   |   January 2006
•   |   December 2005
•   |   November 2005
•   |   October 2005
•   |   September 2005
•   |   August 2005
•   |   July 2005
•   |   June 2005
•   |   May 2005
•   |   April 2005
•   |   March 2005
•   |   February 2005
•   |   January 2005
•   |   December 2004
•   |   November 2004
•   |   October 2004
•   |   September 2004
•   |   August 2004
•   |   July 2004
•   |   June 2004
•   |   May 2004
•   |   April 2004
•   |   March 2004
•   |   February 2004
•   |   January 2004
•   |   December 2003
•   |   November 2003
•   |   October 2003
•   |   September 2003
•   |   August 2003
•   |   July 2003
•   |   June 2003
•   |   May 2003
•   |   April 2003
•   |   March 2003
•   |   February 2003
•   |   January 2003
•   |   December 2002
•   |   November 2002
•   |   October 2002
•   |   September 2002
•   |   August 2002
•   |   July 2002
•   |   June 2002
•   |   May 2002
•   |   April 2002
•   |   March 2002
•   |   February 2002
•   |   January 2002
•   |   December 2001
•   |   November 2001
•   |   October 2001
•   |   September 2001
•   |   August 2001
•   |   July 2001
•   |   June 2001
•   |   May 2001
•   |   April 2001
•   |   March 2001
•   |   February 2001
•   |   January 2001

Appointments

• Nominations

Federal Facts

•   |   Federal Statistics

West Wing

•   |   History