Untitled Document

In early August, voters in Missouri affirmed by a stunning 71 percent vote an amendment to their state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It is the fifth state to add a ban on same-sex marriage to its constitution and the first since a Massachusetts court ruled last year that its state-mandated ban was unconstitutional. The Missouri vote was significant because it was the first popular test of the homosexual marriage issue in a large state balanced almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It was also the first such vote since the U.S. Senate rejected a proposed marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution on July 14.

Another significant aspect of this vote was that opponents of the amendment spent more than $360,000, including more than $100,000 from national gay-rights groups. Amendment supporters ran a quiet campaign that spent less than $10,000, using word of mouth and church-based networks rather than expensive advertising. Yet they won 71 percent of the votes.

As we consider this vote, let's recall that the 2004 United Methodist General Conference voted by a resounding 77 percent margin to "support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." Such laws would affirm and uphold Western Civilization's long-time understanding of marriage and family.

We would hope that United Methodism might help the nation in this critical struggle. After the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, evangelical leader Chuck Colson said Christians should be encouraged that the Amendment got 48 votes in its first effort before the Senate. He is confident it will be back.

But why is an Amendment needed? In 1996, three-fourths of the U.S. House and Senate joined in a bipartisan effort to defend the traditional institution of marriage by passing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). President Bill Clinton signed it into law. It defined, as a matter of federal law, the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Currently, however, there are four federal lawsuits and several dozen state lawsuits filed challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.

In fact, several of the nation's most recognized constitutional experts-including legal scholars such as Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Erwin Chemerinsky, and William Eskridge-believe that DOMA or other traditional marriage laws will be struck down as unconstitutional by courts across the country. The Lambda Legal organization, which is committed to abolishing the nation's traditional marriage laws, said recently: "We won't stop until we have [same-sex] marriage nationwide."

While supportive of traditional marriage, some Americans are hesitant about a Constitutional Amendment. However, the Constitution has been amended no fewer than 27 times, most recently in 1992 to regulate Congressional pay increases. As Sen. John Cornyn has said, "Surely, the protection of marriage is at least as important to our nation as the regulation of Congressional pay."

We need to be reminded what's at stake here. In its 4-3 Goodridge decision last November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court invalidated that state's marriage law-a decision that it reaffirmed this past February. The court argued that traditional marriage is a "stain" on our laws and must be "eradicated." It claimed that traditional marriage is "rooted in persistent prejudices" and "invidious discrimination." Such rhetoric reflects utter hostility toward the institution of marriage.

Opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment like to portray the Amendment as originating with President George W. Bush (who supports it) and those "mean-spirited" conservatives. The Amendment, however, is the brainchild of Dr. Matt Daniels (J.D. degree from the University of Pennsylvania and Ph.D. from Brandeis University) and his broad-based, multicultural, and interfaith coalition known as the Alliance for Marriage.

While pro-homosexual advocates ridicule the Amendment and its backers, the Christians, Jews, and Muslim leaders making up the Alliance believe it is urgently needed. The unique coalition includes the Rev. Walter Fauntroy, long-time Democrat who organized the March on Washington for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School; Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things journal; Bishop Stephen Jecko, Episcopal Diocese of Florida; and Amatullah Shariff (Muslim) of The Mosque Cares Ministry, to name just a few. (For more information, visit www.allianceformarriage.org.)

These distinguished leaders believe that it is only a matter of time before an activist court or judge redefines marriage for all of us. The Federal Marriage Amendment would prevent that from happening. Our 77 percent vote in Pittsburgh affirming civil laws for traditional marriage should help United Methodists provide strong support for the Marriage Amendment.

Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Resistance grows to same-sex marriage by James V. Heidinger II

Resistance grows to same-sex marriage
by James V. Heidinger II