Related articles and links |  1 of 9

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." That is the wording of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as introduced in the Senater by Wayne Allard of Colorado and co-sponsors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Alabama's Jeff Sessions.

The amendment is the same as one introduced in the House earlier this year. Yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins predicted a Senate version of the amendment was forthcoming and said, "There is a growing consensus in the Senate that nothing short of an amendment will protect the institution of marriage from the tyrannical courts. FRC is committed to working with the friends of the family in Congress to secure the passage of a federal marriage amendment."

The amendment follows a series of pro-gay court decisions in Canada, the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which legalized sodomy, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling against the state's ban on gay marriage. (Some predicted that decision could set off a chain reaction forcing other states to recognize gay marriage.) Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which wrote the amendment, toldThe Washington Times, "What's happened in Massachusetts means that we're now in a race against time. If we want our laws to reflect the values and beliefs of most Americans about marriage, we're going to need to pass the federal marriage amendment."

But not all supporters of traditional marriage support the amendment. The Washington Times notes, "Some conservative groups had been arguing for introduction of a broader amendment that would have dictated what sort of civil union benefits states could offer." In addition, amending the Constitution requires the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. As the Weekly Standard noted in its piece on the amendment, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "An amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is what the [Supreme Court] justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope it is." Also, the piece noted that it took decades (and the Civil War) to drum up support for amendments that banned slavery and alcohol.

However, conservative activists like Bill Murray, spokesman for the Family Research Council said, "I think we're on the front side of another Roe v. Wade … It's definitely going to be the biggest issue during the election." Democrats say it's simply an attempt to stir up President Bush's "voting base" who will be sure to turn out in the polls to re-elect the president if the definition of marriage is on the line.

According to the Associated Press, Congress is not expected to take any action on the amendment this year, but may do so after it reconvenes in January.

Weblog wishes you a happy Thanksgiving holiday, and we will return on Monday.

Yesterday, Weblog posted twice, in case you get really bored over the holiday with nothing to read.

Gay marriage:

• Ex-lesbian couple use court in custody, homophobia spat | Dr. Cheryl Clark, the Christian ex-lesbian embroiled in a custody battle with her former partner, has no intention of exposing her daughter to homophobic ideas, according to her attorney. (The Washington Times)
  
  
• Gays Respond: 'I Do,' 'I Might' and 'I Won't' | The response by gay couples to last week's ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry has been hardly monolithic. (The New York Times)
  
  

next page... |  1 of 9

share this page

November (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47