Wanted: Closure on the FMA

By Mark Malaszczyk

Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. —President George W. Bush [1]

The United States Senate is addressing the Federal Marriage Amendment this week, with a vote on the measure likely to come within the next 5-7 days. "Fueled by election-year politics, the gay marriage issue is the most volatile [that] Congress will consider as it returns from a weeklong Memorial Day recess." [2] There are many liberals in America who believe that the management of this issue has been designed to pander to Bush's 'Evangelical Base' and keep the Christian Conservatives 'on board' for the 2006 mid-term elections. It is the opinion of this humble author that it has much more to do with the constitutional evolution of a divisive issue than it does catering to a minority percentage of a second-term President's support.

The amendment reads: "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, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." [3] Gay rights activists are up in arms that this would deprive them of their Fourteenth Amendment Rights, [4] nullify the 'full faith and credit clause,' [5] and forever segregate them in an apartheid-type fashion. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Walter M. Weber, senior litigation counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, clearly explains, there are three 'bad excuses' for opposing the FMA. They are:

1. Marriage should be left to the states.
   
   The FMA does leave marriage to the states. If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual "marriage," it can do so. What the FMA does is stop federal and state courts from forcing states to allow same sex "marriage." So if you're pro-state choice, you should support the FMA.
   
   
2. The FMA would write discrimination into the Constitution.
   
   The Constitution already discriminates in countless ways. You can't vote if you're under 18. You can't become president if you weren't born a U.S. citizen. You can't vote in the Senate unless you are a senator (or, in case of a tie, the vice president). The question is whether reserving marriage to a man and a woman is a worthy thing to do.
   
   
3. We don't need the FMA yet. Let's wait until a federal court forces a state to accept same-sex "marriage."
   
   This excuse is like saying we should not shore up the levees until after a hurricane or flood knocks them down. Be serious. [6]
   
   

The FMA has evolved out of a perceived need by the President and conservative Congressional lawmakers to neutralize judicial activists and their disregarding of the1996 Defense of Marriage Act. As President Bush has stated:

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. [7]

It goes without question that there is a religious component to this struggle. America is a religious nation, with an overwhelming Christian bent. Seventy-nine percent of Americans identify themselves with what they call "Christian" denominations, while fifteen percent do not identify themselves as Christian (2001). [8] Sixty-seven percent of Americans claim to pray daily, with another thirteen percent stating that they pray several times a week. [9] Pastors and congregants in churches across the nation observed ''Marriage Protection Sunday'' on June 4, 2006. "Marriage Protection Sunday is an opportunity for a pastor to set his own moral authority by helping congregations understand what God has to say about His institution of marriage," explained Duke Barrett, Vice President of Governmental Affairs at the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. [10]

While the left-leaning demagogues believe that the Bible Crowd is threatening their right to practice homosexuality in the open, life WITHOUT a Federal Marriage Amendment could endanger our religious freedoms. As Dr. Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University asserts:

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles. [11]

If you doubt this for a moment, remember the case of Pastor John Hagee of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, TX. Pastor Hagee was banned from Canadian television for preaching Biblical opposition to homosexuality, utilizing quotes directly from Scripture in his sermon.

The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ [delivered] the names of 505,199 people who have signed a petition in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Senate [on] June 5, 2006. "We are very hopeful that senators will heed their constituents and support the Marriage Protection Amendment," said Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director of the Center. "Doing so will return this matter to the people and take marriage out of the hands of activist judges, such as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts." Cass said that if given the chance, "the majority of Americans always vote to protect marriage. We call on the Senate to do what is right and is in the best interest of our children and nation."

When it comes to same-sex "marriage," the U.S. Senate and many members of the judiciary could take a lesson from the French, said Cass. After witnessing the effects of same-sex "marriage" on neighboring countries, the French General Assembly issued a report recommending that marriage and adoption should be off-limits for homosexual couples. The report found it more important "to affirm and protect children's rights." [12]

The American Civil Liberties Union has condemned President Bush's support for the constitutional change. "President Bush underestimates the goodness of Americans by once again pushing divide and conquer politics;" said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Personal decisions on marriage and family should be made in each family's house, not in the White House. America — and all Americans — deserve better from their president." [13] This is typical civil libertarian rhetoric, ignoring that the majority of Americans SUPPORT marriage be defined as between man and woman, and desire clarification and closure on the matter. [14] Unfortunately, Congress does not seem to have the fortitude necessary to make that happen. Neither chamber is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states — three quarters of which would then have to approve it. [15] That being the case, pastors like Duke Barrett still want the process to move forward. "It's a principle issue," Barrett said. "Senators need to vote on it, and constituents need to know. Senators who are up for re-election may catch a backlash from the folks who brought them to office." [16]

In conclusion, the time has come for this issue to be voted on in our Congress, with the realization that there could be either support or backlash by constituencies in upcoming elections. Our representative democracy is consensus driven; 49.9999% of the people can disagree with policy. As long as dissidents have the freedom to be seen and heard from, the system works. Heterophobic fear mongers [a.k.a Gay Rights Extremists] are going to have to take an articulate and mature approach to this issue, either in victory or defeat. This is not hugging a tree or saving the blind beetle from extinction. This is the future of the American family, and We the People will not be silenced on this issue.

In 1725, Giambattista Vico argued that marriage is the 'seedbed' of a society, and that marriage between man and woman is an essential characteristic of any civilization. [17] Some 200 years later British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 civilizations over a 5,000 year period and concluded that "studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates." [18] Unwin's message is clear: "make sexual purity and marital commitment top priorities or steady decline and slow death are unavoidable. Scrooge saw his future and trembled. For the sake of future generations, may America do likewise." [19]

NOTES:




















© Mark Malaszczyk