Amended FMA Faces Pro-Family Criticism, Senate Snags

by Allie Martin, Bill Fancher, and Jenni Parker
March 24, 2004

(AgapePress) - Several pro-family leaders, concerned that recent changes to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment will even more explicitly allow states to create civil unions or other marriage equivalents, are calling upon U.S. lawmakers to protect traditional marriage strongly in the Constitution.

In a Monday press conference, Representative Marilyn Musgrave joined Senator Wayne Allard in announcing technical changes that will be made to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Both legislators feel the minor wording changes make the original intent of the amendment clearer by removing potentially ambiguous language.

Musgrave said she is encouraged by the changes introduced by her colleague, Senator Allard, and believes these changes will help strengthen support for the marriage amendment by further clarifying the legislation's intended assertion that "marriage in the United States is a unique union between one man and one woman."

Also, Musgrave says, the current amendment "protects states from court-imposed civil unions and from being forced by the courts to recognize homosexual unions accepted in other states."

The congresswoman from Colorado introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J. Res. 56, in the House in May 2003, and it currently has the support of 117 bi-partisan co-sponsors there. Allard introduced the amendment with the technical changes in the Senate on Monday, and it currently has seven bi-partisan co-sponsors.

The effort to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate is running into the expected Democrat resistance, but there is also some key Republican opposition. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah who is also a Mormon, is not behind the wording of the amendment that currently defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Hatch wants to reword the legislation again, inserting language that leaves the definition of marriage up to the individual states.

But Colorado Senator Allard says that change would open the door for court challenges. "The concern I would have with the Hatch language is that I think the courts will end up participating, and I do think that the definition of marriage should be a legislative issue and not a judicial issue," he says.

Jan LaRue

Problematic Language Loopholes
Meanwhile, even among the pro-family activists who support the idea of the Federal Marriage Amendment, not all are pleased with the latest changes. Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America feels that the current language of the amendment leaves much to be desired.

LaRue points out that the former language of the amendment barred courts from benefiting "unmarried couples or groups," while the wording change seems to permit conferral of the "legal incidents of marriage" on any union of a man or a woman, even if they are unmarried -- something the homosexual lobby would probably object to as grossly unfair.

But CWFA's spokesperson objects to it as well. "It's wrong for government to sanction and benefit unmarried relationships, 'gay' or straight, whether it's done by a court or a legislature," she says.

And Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, says his group is urging the leaders on Capitol Hill to word the amendment so marriage is clearly defined, not only in name, but also in essence. He feels the amendment leaves too much room for states to set up pseudo-marital arrangements.

Bob Knight

The pro-family leader says even the first sentence of the amendment standing alone would be better than the current language, because it would "do no harm." According to the current wording, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only 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."

Knight's concern is that the legislation, as it now reads, omits the words "nor state or federal law." Hence, the amendment still permits "the erosion of marriage" by failing to restrict states' power to create civil unions. "Whether you call other relationships 'Quasi Marital Schemes' or 'Civil Unions,' when they're recognized in law no differently from marriage, all you've protected is the name," he says.

Homosexual Marriage -- a Sign of the Times?
Despite concerns about the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment, pro-family supporters agree that the constitutional amendment is needed, and that effective, unambiguous legislation must be passed if the institution of marriage is to be protected. Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson says believers in America need to pray that the move to legalize same-sex marriages is stopped before the nation is forced to face severe judgment from God.

But Robertson laments that Christians are not united in the effort to prevent homosexual marriage from becoming a national reality. "Not only are we allowing it," he says, "but we're trying to sanctify it in one particular church communion." Nevertheless, the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network says God's Word is clear about homosexuality. He notes that homosexual activity is included in Leviticus among a list of offenses against God that will cause a land to "vomit out its inhabitants."

And in the New Testament, Robertson points out, scripture speaks of homosexuality as a sign of the time when God has given a society up to its own "base passions." He notes that in Romans, Paul described how "women burned with passion for women, men with men, doing things that were unseemly."

The radio and television evangelist says, "This was the time when God gave his society up. I just pray that America hasn't gone that far yet -- that we can pull back from the abyss that we're engaged in."

Robertson asserts that an out-of-control judiciary, fueled by secular allies, is eroding America's spiritual foundation, and that the recent rash of homosexual marriages is further evidence that the nation is in need of a true spiritual revival. Robertson encourages believers to pray that the country's leaders will gain a true fear and respect for God before it is too late.