WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush's re-election.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

"Sadly, President Bush is playing election-year politics with this divisive issue," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday. "He is shamelessly using this ploy to energize his right-wing base. We should never rewrite the Constitution to enshrine intolerance."

The White House said Bush did not devote his radio address to the issue or decide to host a presidential event Monday to again endorse the amendment because it is politically expedient, but because there's a vote on it scheduled next week in the Senate.

"On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations and religious leaders," Bush said in urging Congress to pass the amendment and send it to the states for ratification. "They're Republicans, Democrats and independents who've come together to support this amendment."

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Bush said the amendment would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- has said he will vote for it.

Acknowledging that emotions often run hot in this debate, Bush urged calm.

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children.

"It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals," he said. "It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior and when it's the law, it's a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate."

In his radio address, Bush struck back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

"Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years," the president said.

Bush said there is broad consensus in America to protect the institution of marriage.

Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, he said. Moreover, he said, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The fact that Bush states that he is not alone and most people agree with his delusional thoughts is asinine. There is no way he can even come close to 2/3 yet he keeps trying to convince us this is what our nation wants.

Bush has the same problem that radical Christians do, trying to speak for everyone else (in a lot of cases, speaking for God) "Everyone voice needs to be heard" my ass.

"raise millions of children"

"lesbian and gay men"

bush suxs at life

I think this is extremely unnecessary. It is as if he is trying to limit every kind of freedom the people have here. First he had the Patriot Act and now something that is quite ridiculous? I just feel it is not the right thing to do to try to change people into how you want them to be no matter how much you dislike who they are. If he doesn't like homosexuals, he could just stay away from them and be a homophobe in his own area but to make it a national law to ban gay marriage is unbelieveable. Just because he is the president does not mean everyone agrees with him and that he can make all his desires into laws. Actually, just because he is the president does not mean he has any idea what the nation wants and I think it is pretty clear that he has not been thinking about the nation during his two terms. If he had any idea, he would do something about his low ratings, would he not?

do you agree?

yeah actually. and im sorry if people get offended but that is my opinion

Hooray for intolerance...

Just curious, why?

if we allowed gays to marry, then we'd have to allow incest marriages, we'd have to allow 50 year old men to marry 12 year old girls, we'd have to allow men to marry chimpanzee's if they wanted, etc. etc. etc.

Well there goes your chance

the difference is that those relationships aren't even legal without marriage...gay relationships are legal sexually but those other ones aren't - the standard is always there

Even incestual marriages aren't wrong if two people actually want to be together despite the consequences of having a child together. I actually think there might be many couples who somehow are related and so they are incestual without even knowing. Overall, one shouldn't limit people on who they want to marry but when it comes to things that have actual consequences, such as incestual marriages, then it could be considered but here the case seems to be just a dislike of homosexuals getting married.

Also, someone in Britian has already married a dolphin. It was the woman's choice and while I would not do the same thing, I don't see it as a thing to freak out about. I would only worry about them if there were consequences after intercourse but even then, it's their choice if they choose to handle it, not ours.

You really categorize them as the same? I find that really sad both for you and the people you are labeling in such a manner.

Seems that lot of people who are intolerant of the concept of gay marriage don't understand the whole 2 consenting adult human beings deal.

i agree with bush!

I'm with it. I'm not against gay people and Will is right about thier being human, but having Gay People marry isn't right. It will change the society's way of looking at like in general. People will grow up (kids) and notice these things and see that it's okay. I'm not against gay people, but marrying each other takes it too far. But I really can't say because I'm not gay and never been in a relationship with the same sex. It's so confusing, but I don't think it should happen.