Missouri Republicans back Bush on gay marriage ban

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's desire for a constitutional ban on gay marriages drew support from Republicans and opposition from a Democrat in Missouri's congressional delegation.

Bush on Tuesday called for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage, arguing he wants to prevent judges from changing how the "most enduring human institution" is defined. Judges in Massachusetts, city officials in San Francisco and a county in New Mexico all recently backed gay marriage.

"No culture ever survived the destruction of the family unit," Rep. Todd Akin said in an interview. "When you say 'gay marriage,' what you're really doing is changing the definition of what a marriage is. So I think it ultimately undermines our entire culture."

Akin said judges are violating the separation of powers -- outlined in the Constitution -- among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. He mentioned historical Supreme Court decisions upholding slavery, segregated schools and abortion and striking down laws that criminalize gay sex.

In each case, Akin said, judges acted as though they were legislators "with disastrous consequences."

"If I were calling the shots, I think impeachment of judges is a better constitutional tool than the amendment, but the reality being where it is, with the number of liberals in the U.S. Senate, a constitutional amendment is probably the best thing we can do," Akin said.

Democratic Rep. William Lacy Clay said it should be up to states, not Congress, to decide on gay marriage.

He argued that presidential politics are driving the issue and accused the Bush administration of creating a diversion "from the really important issues this nation faces," such as the deficit, war in Iraq, joblessness and the economy.

"This is one of those wedge issues; people are going to fall on one side or the other, and emotions will run high," said Clay, who represents the city of St. Louis. "It's one that I'm sure this Congress would rather avoid, but if it's thrown in our laps, we'll have to debate and discuss it thoroughly."

Out of 560 e-mails to his office on Tuesday, 330 were in favor of a constitutional ban and 230 were opposed, Clay said.

Clay said his personal view is that gay marriage is a private issue and not the government's business.

"As my sister says, there's a lid for every pot," he said.

Opposition also came from Democratic Rep. Karen McCarthy of Kansas City, who said in a statement that a constitutional amendment would discriminate against a whole class of people, violating the equal rights principle upon which the United States was founded.

In limiting state authority to regulate marriage, a constitutional amendment could also outlaw existing state legal protection of health benefits or fair taxation upon a partner's death.

"Marriage and family law should remain the purview of the states," McCarthy said.

Besides Akin, three other Missouri House members are co-sponsoring a bill proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage: Republican Reps. Roy Blunt from southwest Missouri, Jo Ann Emerson from southeast Missouri and Kenny Hulshof from northeast Missouri. Sens. Jim Talent and Kit Bond are not sponsoring legislation but said Tuesday that they support a constitutional ban.

Emerson said she acknowledges states' rights to approve civil unions and make exceptions for gay couples.

"There is a tremendous difference, however, between acknowledging civil unions by making new laws and endorsing them by broadening the definition of marriage," she said in a statement. "We must guard against weakening the institution."

Bond said that amending the Constitution should be approached with caution, "but a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage should be an option given what is happening today."

"I stand ready to support fully and vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages if it becomes, as the result of the actions of activist judges, the only course of action to preserve traditional marriage in our society and in states like Missouri," Bond said in a statement.

Talent said people are free to live as they choose and free to try to influence culture, but that "the courts should not force on the American people changes in their cultural institutions."

"The time has come for a Constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage and I would support an amendment to prevent aggressive judicial activists from taking away the right of the people to decide for themselves what they believe," Talent said in a statement.

Hulshof also weighed in.

"Although a constitutional amendment is an extraordinary step, it is warranted in this case," Hulshof said. "It is the only course of action that will guarantee marriage remains a sacred union of a man and a woman."

Republican Rep. Sam Graves said the Massachusetts judges "left me no other option than to support a constitutional amendment."

"Massachusetts should not have the power to force Missouri to accept its ruling," he said in a statement. "This amendment will define marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, and I support the proposed amendment."

Democratic Reps. Dick Gephardt and Ike Skelton declined comment on the issue.