2 of 2

Are you in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment as drafted by the Alliance for Marriage—which leaves the door open for civil unions in the states?
I'm certainly not in favor of civil unions; however, I support the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment because I believe it is the best we can hope to achieve at this time.

How would permitting legally recognized unions between same-sex persons (under the heading "civil unions") be different from permitting "marriage" between persons of the same sex?
It has been argued that civil unions are really just same-sex "marriage" under a different name, and I am inclined to agree with that assessment. Nevertheless, so long as this debate continues, it is important that the traditional definition of marriage be identified and preserved at the federal level. Once that happens, we can concentrate our efforts on preventing the passage of civil unions on a state-by-state basis.

What is next for the grassroots movements that emerged during Election 2004?
Our primary objective in the coming years must be to fight for judicial reform, not only with regard to the Supreme Court, but also the federal and state courts. So long as activist judges continue to legislate from the bench and create laws, rather than interpret them, the freedoms and values we hold dear will be in jeopardy.

Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

An article about James Dobson's political organization, Focus on Family Action, is also available on our website: Separation of Ministry and Politics | In order to influence public policy successfully, Focus on the Family must quickly learn how to remove politicking from its ministry core. (July 15, 2004)

Christianity Today's full coverage of the marriage battle is collected on this page. It includes:

Banning Gay Marriage Is Not The Answer | Legal actions aren't loving if they're all we do, says the author of Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would. (Sept. 01, 2004)

Gay Marriage Roadblocks | California Supreme Court voids San Francisco unions as a federal judge says the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. (Sept. 01, 2004)

Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage | Why the rhetoric doesn't stand up under scrutiny. (Aug. 26, 2004)

The Man Behind the Marriage Amendment | It's just as well that Matt Daniels loves a good fight, because he has a big one on his hands. (Aug. 25, 2004)

A Crumbling Institution | How social revolutions cracked the pillars of marriage. (Aug. 24, 2004)

What God Hath Not Joined | Why marriage was designed for male and female. (Aug. 20, 2004)

The Next Sexual Revolution | By practicing what it preaches on marriage, the church could transform society. (Aug. 27, 2003)

My Two Dads? Not in Florida | U.S. Circuit Court upholds ban on gay adoption (March 11, 2004)

Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful | Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society. (Feb. 19, 2004)

Let No Law Put Asunder | A constitutional amendment defending marriage is worth the effort. (Jan. 26, 2004)

Massachusetts Court Backs Gay Marriage | Christians say gay activists will overturn marriage laws (Dec. 10, 2003)

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

January 2005, Vol. 49, No. 1