February 24, 2004 - How does a ceremony performed half a continent away cementing with the glue of the law a relationship between two people I do not know and will never meet diminish and imperil the marriage between my wife and I? How does a ceremony solemnizing a union of fidelity and commitment between two strangers, of whatever gender, strike at the institution of all of the couples who have freely chosen to join themselves in a marriage recognized by law and bound to be respected? How does the declaration of two unique individuals that they are united in love and fidelity and pledging to support one another act to weaken the similar vows that I have exchanged with my wife and the law of my State recognized? How does preventing two people who have tied themselves in a bond of fidelity and commitment from seeking the public affirmation of marriage strengthen and defend anyone else’s marriage?

The fact that John and Ann’s wedding in Boston was yesterday has no effect on my marriage. Neither did the wedding of Amy and Ann in San Francisco diminish my obligation to my spouse in Illinois. I do not know them nor will anything that they do or do not do have any impact on my life. How then do I, a citizen of Illinois, through the machinery of my Federal government, have the right to define for them the circumstances and conditions under which they can be married?

The authority to define marriage carries with it the power to determine its obligations and terms. The authority to define marriage carries with it the power to define the method and terms under which a marriage may be dissolved. Through out our Constitutional history the recognition and definition of what constitutes a marriage has been left to the States to determine. Today the President of the United States called for Congress to Amend the Constitution to federalize the law of marriage preempting the authority of the individual States. Our Constitution has been amended to restrict a State’s power to restrict the rights of its citizens. Never before has it been amended to forbid the states from extending the rights of its citizens.

In calling on the Congress to act the President referred to the principle underlying our system of ordered liberty saying, “America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens”. At the same time he calls for the intrusion of the Federal government into the most basic aspects of the individual’s life; forever altering the political relationship between the Federal authority and the States and indeed between each State and its individual citizens.

As the first step in his reelection campaign it expands a contemptuous bigotry into a storm of diverting fury aimed at creating a wedge to drive Americans apart from one another. It is a transparent attempt to harness overt prejudice in the drive for votes and to redefine the political debate in this election year away from discussion of the nature of the commonweal by excluding from the protections of our most basic of human rights a whole segment of America – to exclude them, by definition, from common kindness, good will, and decency. It is un-American and, indeed, un-Christian.