Homosexual Marriage Debate Spawns Legislative Battles Nationwide

by Rusty Pugh, Jenni Parker, and Bill Fancher
March 23, 2004

(AgapePress) - The congressional sponsors of a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban homosexual marriage have unveiled wording changes in the legislation that would leave states with the right to recognize civil unions and grant domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples.

According to Associated Press, Senator Wayne Allard and Representative Marilyn Musgrave -- both Republicans from Colorado -- say their changes take the ambiguity out of the amendment, clarifying that courts may not mandate civil unions, but that state lawmakers could approve them. "It reins in federal and state judges from imposing gay marriage on other states and leaves the rest -- the benefits or bundles of benefits -- to state legislatures," Musgrave says.

At a news conference, Alliance for Marriage president Matt Daniels approved the re-wording and said that the amendment is still in line with the goals of those who want to see marriage defined as being between one man and one woman. "That language will cover us. It will achieve our goal," he said.

Daniels said the secondary questions of benefits can be left up to the people in each state. However, he feels the issue of how marriage is defined is too important for the states to decide.

"We don't want to have to carry a roadmap in our car that'll tell us what marriage is depending on the state that we're in," he said, "and we don't want our kids to carry that roadmap either, because they're going to get lost."

Senator Allard told members of the press that he believes the changes in the amendment will improve its chances of being approved, because "it's clarifying and it takes out ambiguity, and I think that's what you want to have in any constitutional amendment." Still, the minor changes have not lessened the opposition of Democrats, who responded by seeking to delay Senate hearings on the proposed amendment indefinitely.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has taken up the debate in a hearing that began at 10:00 Tuesday morning. During the proceedings, homosexual congressman Barney Frank testified on the amendment, opposing it on the grounds that "it denies any state in this country the right by any means, including a popular referendum, to decide that it wants to extend marriage to same-sex couples."

The amendment is expected to pass quickly in the House, but proponents anticipate that it will have trouble in the Senate.

Coast-to-Coast Controversy Continues
As traditional marriage proponents fight to get the Federal Marriage Amendment through the legislative process, individuals and groups around the nation are responding in various ways to the ongoing controversy.

For instance, AP reports that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty addressed thousands yesterday at a rally on the Capitol steps. He told the crowd that the people should have the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage in that state. But even though the Minnesota House is expected to pass the proposed amendment Wednesday, the Democrat-controlled state Senate could still kill the legislation in committee.

And in Massachusetts, lawmakers continue to wrestle with an amendment to the state constitution that would ban homosexual marriage and prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage decreed by the Supreme Judicial Court from taking effect. At the same time, a powerful lobby in that state is working to oppose such an amendment under the banner of homosexual civil rights.

But Rev. Richard Richardson of Boston's Black Ministerial Alliance contends that homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. He notes that his organization "strongly supports the traditional institution of marriage," and he says the one-man, one-woman marriage "plays a critical role in ensuring the prosperity and progress of the black family and the black community at large."

Despite the attempts of homosexual marriage proponents to portray their agenda as a fight against discrimination, Richardson insists that the defense of traditional marriage has nothing to do with discrimination.

Meanwhile out west, on the heels of attempts by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and other liberal public officials to defy California law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, an openly homosexual assemblyman is trying to push a homosexual marriage bill through the state legislature. But one pro-family activist is challenging Christians to rise to the occasion.

Randy Thomasson

A Test for the Church
Randy Thomasson, director of Campaign for California Families, is calling on pro-family citizens to stop the homosexual marriage bill in the State Assembly. If passed, this bill, which has been driven by homosexual assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, would grant full-blown marriage rights to same-sex couples.

CCF's spokesman believes this issue is a real test for the Christian Church and says now is the time for believers to take action. "The mayor of San Francisco has awoken a sleeping giant -- the Church," he says. "Now the Church must pick up its tools and get to work."

Thomasson asserts that the reason there is such darkness in society is because the light -- which comes from the Church -- is not shining. He says, "We've got to be active and we have to be involved now. That doesn't mean sit there and speculate or be a spectator. It means not loving in words or tongue, but with actions and in truth, as the Bible says."