2 of 3

In Vermont, 1,500 homosexual couples entered into civil unions in the first six months after passage of the law.

Conservative Christian groups, including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, have opposed the marriage amendment because of the state-level loophole. To date in half a dozen state legislatures, politicians have introduced some type of civil union or civil marriage bill. Some 35 states have adopted laws explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriages.

Marriage and family law is being tested nationwide in new ways. For example, a lesbian mother is using her Vermont-approved civil union to challenge Georgia's child-custody laws. The case could become the first test of whether Vermont's civil-union law is applicable elsewhere.

Matt Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, says the strategy of pursuing simultaneous challenges to the legal status of marriage "virtually guarantees that our conventional legal defenses—including DOMA—will be insufficient to save the legal status of marriage in the U.S. from being undermined in the courts." He believes such challenges will provide a catalyst for public support of the marriage amendment.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The Alliance for Marriage site includes a section on the marriage amendment and comments delivered by members at a press conference in July. The site also has collected press excerpts.

An Alliance for Marriage poll found a majority of Americans agree that the health of marriage and families should be the primary domestic policy priority of both parties. The site also details the benefits of marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things: it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a same-sex marriage law of another state, and it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. It was passed in 1996.

National Review's July 23 editorial and cover story, "The 28th Amendment," called for the country to defend the valued institution of marriage. On National Review Online, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch criticized the stand.

National Review Online's Contributing Editor Stanley Kurtz pointed out the link between "the rise of the movement for gay marriage and the decline of heterosexual courtship and marriage."

In a 1996 Christianity Today column, Charles Colson said that "accepting same-sex relationships as the moral and legal equivalent of marriage will transform the very definition of marriage—with far-reaching repercussions."

A Newhouse News Service article looked at an expanding political movement that promotes marriage as a powerful prescription for many modern-day ills.

Robert H. Knight and Timothy J. Dailey of the Family Research Council warned the Vermont legislature about the slippery slope of redefining marriage.

Concerned Women for America have an archive of articles in response to the same-sex marriage issue.

Columnist Maggie Gallagher said the need for the Alliance for Marriage amendment has recently became dramatically clear.

Other recent media coverage includes:

With Vermont in the Lead, Controversy Progresses — The Washington Post (Sept. 4, 2001)

No way to save broken marriages (Editorial) — The Seattle Times (July 15, 2001)

Marriage-Strengthening Constitutional Amendment Proposed — Fox News (July 13, 2001)

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

October 1 2001, Vol. 45, No. 12