"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 ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.