Bush may back gay marriage ban

THE US: President Bush's political director has told a group of prominent conservatives that the president would soon publicly…

THE US: President Bush's political director has told a group of prominent conservatives that the president would soon publicly endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Ms Bay Buchanan, sister of former Republican presidential candidate Mr Pat Buchanan, said she was one of several conservatives who heard the message from political director Karl Rove two weeks ago.

"We were told by Karl Rove that the president would support the constitutional amendment - not just that he would endorse it but also that he would fight for it," Mr Buchanan said.

Specifically, Mr Rove told an alliance of conservatives known as the Arlington Group in a telephone conversation that President Bush would back the amendment being put forward by Colorado Republican Congressman Mr Marilyn Musgrave and that his statement would come "sooner rather than later."

READ MORE

The debate over gay marriage has heated up recently with a decision by San Francisco's mayor last week to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts to strike down a ban on gay marriage. White House spokesman Mr Scott McClellan said Mr Bush had not yet decided whether to support a constitutional amendment. "It's something he continues to look at very closely. He has indicated that, if necessary, he would be prepared to support a constitutional amendment if activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage," Mr McClelland said. "The only alternative would be the constitutional process, and the president has specifically said the legislation introduced by Congresswoman Musgrave reflects the principles which he has talked about."

The proposed amendment would reserve marriages solely for "unions between a man and a woman." It would allow state voters and legislatures to determine if they want to legalise civil unions between same-sex couples but would state that no court can require states to accept such civil unions.