|
by Robert Barnett
Pro-family legislators launched a new front in the culture war May 15 by introducing a proposed federal Constitutional amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives. The move is intended to legally define marriage as being solely between one man and one woman and thwart court-based efforts to interpret the federal or any state constitution as mandating that marriage-like recognition or benefits must be provided to unmarried couples. The amendment says, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or 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.” Amendment sponsors say the amendment’s purpose is to shut down liberal court decisions on behalf of homosexual unions while still allowing such unions to have legal recognition and benefits if a state legislature passes appropriate legislation. In addition, the amendment is intended to have no impact on the benefits a private company offers its employees. Alliance For Marriage (AFM), a non-profit organization in Virginia, spearheaded the drafting of the resolution’s language and plans to remain actively involved with congressional allies in the bid to amend the Constitution. The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which legally defined marriage for the federal government as one man and one woman, is inadequate to bolster traditional marriage, AFM says, because it doesn’t prevent state courts from requiring state recognition of same-sex unions, and the DOMA itself is vulnerable to being ruled unconstitutional. Vermont is the only state that legally recognizes homosexual unions, prescribed by its state legislature in 2000 after the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution required such recognition. The Hawaii Supreme Court had issued a similar decision in 1993 but Hawaii residents adopted a state constitutional amendment in 1998 to nullify the court action. Massachusetts courts are currently hearing a lawsuit for legalized homosexual unions. In addition, some six states and dozens of municipalities offer benefits to unmarried partners of their public employees. U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-3rd District) strongly supports the measure, according to his legislative director, Karin Hope. U.S. Rep. Bill Luther (D-6th District) supports “the general concept that marriage be defined as a man and a woman” but is uncomfortable with adding a marital amendment to the Constitution at this time and will not support the resolution, according to his chief of staff, Bob Decheine. Efforts to obtain official comment from the offices of U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4th District) and U.S. Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (D-5th District) were unsuccessful. Minnesota Family Council (MFC) President Tom Prichard said MFC welcomes the amendment since “we’re seeing marriage being assaulted in our society by the courts and elsewhere. To ultimately protect marriage legally we will need constitutional protections. The proposed amendment prohibits both courts and legislatures from redefining marriage. The amendment would build a firewall around the institution of marriage.” One social conservative group not endorsing the amendment effort is the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, D.C. Peter Sprigg, FRC’s senior director of culture studies, said FRC is troubled that the amendment would still allow state legislatures to pass laws that give legal sanction and benefits to homosexual unions. “Unfortunately, we cannot endorse it in its present form. We feel it doesn’t go far enough in protecting the institution of marriage and leaves the door open to counterfeit arrangements that parallel marriage,” Sprigg said. FRC is not actively opposing the amendment, he said, but is urging representatives to change it to unconditionally ban all civil unions outside of marriage. In response to FRC, Daniels said that while his and Sprigg’s groups share common values and goals, “as a practical political matter, it is our judgment that it [FRC’s approach] is non-viable.” Daniels also noted that Focus on the Family and Gary Bauer, former FRC leader, support the resolution. Liberal and homosexual activist groups have condemned the resolution as both discrimination against same-sex couples and a federal attempt to meddle in state matters. “Marriage has always been handled at the state level, and the idea that a state supreme court cannot be allowed to interpret its own state constitution is outrageous,” said Jack Stuart, administrator of the St. Paul/Minneapolis chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. “In addition, I disagree with it because gay and lesbian couples should be able to get full recognition and comparable benefits for their unions. That’s not a threat to traditional marriage.” Teresa Nelson, staff legal counsel for the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) in St. Paul said MCLU hasn’t taken a position on the amendment. The national American Civil Liberties Union attacked the proposal in a May 15 press release as the “legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb” that would “wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families.” For an amendment to be added to the Constitution, it must be affirmed by two-thirds of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and then gain approval from 38 of the 50 state legislatures. |
|
Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute 2855 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis MN, 55418-3265 Phone 612.789.8811, FAX 612.789.8858, www.mfc.org |