Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. (Applause.)Well, that's his opinion, and voters knew it when they elected him. But how does he square this with ideas like these?
Doesn't homophobia render gays and lesbians "weak and vulnerable"?
Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life . . . .
Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America . . . .
Because one of the main sources of our national unity is our belief in equal justice, we need to make sure Americans of all races and backgrounds have confidence in the system that provides justice.
Wouldn't the culture of life be strengthened by giving same-sex couples the opportunity to marry? Would this not reduce prosmiscuity (by far the leading cause of AIDS) even as it brings to gay couples all the other benefits of marriage that work together to increase the life expectancy of married people by an average five years -- an increase that is comparable to the negative consequences of smoking on life expectancy?
Isn't this the meaning of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws"? Isn't marriage still "one the basic civil rights of man" that is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,"as the Supreme Court held nearly 40 years ago in Loving v. Virginia?
Just wondering, Mr. President.