Comments on the SOTU Address

There are already a ton of commentaries on the President's address so I won't be exhaustive in mine. I do, however, want to address a couple of points that he made.

First of all, the section of the speech where he talked about steroid use in sports seemed out of place. The general discussion about the problems of drug use among youth was appropriate but I've never heard steroids addressed specifically before by a president. Perhaps he put it in because the quarterback of the New England Patriots was in attendance. Still, it seemed to disrupt the flow of the speech.

Second, I want to address the section where he talked about marriage. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Note that he refers to the fact that President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. This could be taken several ways, I'll leave it up to you to determine which way(s) you take it. The last part is what made me cringe. Regardless of whether you support or oppose marriage, civil unions, or whatever between two people of the same gender, I oppose a Constitutional amendment. This is something that is properly left up to the states. The bit about "one state may not redefine marriage for other states" addresses Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution which states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

For example, this is why states recognize the driver's licenses of other states. It also applies to marriage licenses. The second sentence of this section is the authority under which the Congress passed the DoMA. This provides specific exception to how marriages are treated. Similar laws could be passed regarding driver's licenses or concealed weapon permits.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but, on the face of it, the DoMA itself appears constitutional. As I interpret it, it says that, if one state allows marriages/civil unions between two people of the same gender, other states are not required to recognize them, although they can do so if they so choose. I think that's good enough. Now, I do think that there are activist judges out there that are using the bench to advance their own agendas. However, I also think that an amendment to the Constitution is like using a sledgehammer to pound a thumbtack. One comment I read speculated that the "constitutional process" Bush referred to is not that of amendment (he never actually said the word "amendment") but rather the process of impeachment. Assuming the charges are justified, my initial opinion is that it would be a better way to deal with judges that step over the line.