2 of 2

The attorneys general of Utah, Nebraska, and South Dakota have filed one of 15 amicus briefs in Goodridge, warning that one state's legislation of homosexual marriage could supplant the marriage laws of other states. Their brief highlights the experience of Vermont. The Vermont legislature, upon orders from the state supreme court in 2000, authorized civil unions between homosexuals and extended marriage benefits and protections to same-sex couples. But only 11 percent of the couples participating in civil unions in Vermont last year actually live in Vermont.

"As with any civil rights struggle, we will not stop until discrimination ends," Wolfson said. "Married couples should not have to get a marriage visa to cross state lines. There's no question gay marriage is inevitable."

Daniels said that because of Article 4 a pro-homosexual Goodridge verdict could invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress in 1996, as discriminatory. The only solution, Daniels says, is a constitutional amendment. Alliance for Marriage has been lining up support for a federal marriage amendment from organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Legal Society. It has also received support from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Church of God in Christ.

Daniels believes state passage is within grasp. Thirty-six states, two shy of the three-fourths required to pass an amendment, already have passed state DOMA laws.

"Ultimately, homosexuals understand they cannot transform America the way they want," Daniels said, "as long as laws recognize the unique nature of marriage between a male and female."

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Past Christianity Today coverage of same-sex marriage in the U.S. includes:

Christian Conservatives Split on Federal Marriage Amendment | Law would protect marriage from courts, but legislatures could still extend marital benefits to same-sex unions. (July 20, 2002)

Defining Marriage | Conservatives advocate amendment to preserve traditional matrimony. (October 1, 2001)

No Balm in Denver | Episcopalians defer debate over same-sex blessings for another three years. (July 17, 2001)

Marriage Laws Embroil Legislatures | New Englanders push for domestic-partner benefits. (April 26, 2001)

Presbyterians Propose Ban on Same-Sex Ceremonies | Change to church constitution, which passes by only 17 votes, now goes to presbyteries. (July 5, 2001)

Sticking With the Status Quo | United Methodists reject gay marriage, ordination. (May 15, 2000)

Presbyterians Vote Down Ban on Same-Sex Unions | Opponents say vague wording led to defeat. (March 29, 2001)

States Consider Laws on Same-Sex Unions California to vote on 'limit on marriage' in March (Jan. 10, 1999)

Presbyterians Support Same-Sex Unions (Dec. 10, 1999)

Pastor Suspended in Test of Same-Sex Marriage Ban (Apr. 26, 1999)

Same-Sex Rites Cause Campus Stir (Aug. 11, 1997)

State Lawmakers Scramble to Ban Same-Sex Marriages (Feb. 3, 1997)

Clinton Signs Law Backing Heterosexual Marriage (Oct. 28, 1996)

The Alliance for Marriage site includes a section on its proposed marriage amendment. The site also has collected press excerpts on the amendment.

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.

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."

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

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

May 2003, Vol. 47, No. 5