Debate on FMA Continues on Eve of Vote -- If There Is One
by Jody Brown, Bill Fancher and Fred Jackson
July 13, 2004
(AgapePress) - The lines are being drawn in the Capitol Hill debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which the U.S. Senate could vote on as early as Wednesday. President Bush favors the amendment, while the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards oppose it. And the Republican leadership in the Senate, joined by minority clergy and civil rights leaders, is calling for its passage -- but the Democratic leadership is threatening to filibuster the measure to avoid a direct vote on the amendment.
S.J.Res. 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment, has been the center of heated debate on the Senate floor since last Friday. Supporters of the amendment are keenly aware they may not have the two-thirds majority needed in the chamber to pass the measure, but still want to press forward with that vote so come November, voters will know where the lawmakers and their respective parties stand on the issue of traditional marriage and its protection through a constitutional amendment.
The White House has made its position perfectly clear, releasing a "Statement of Administration Policy" [PDF] on the legislation earlier this week. That statement not only strongly endorses passage of S.J.Res. 40, it also takes issue with judicial activists and elected officials who have done everything in their power to legalize homosexual "marriage."
"[A] few activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive effort to redefine the fundamental meaning of marriage," it says. "Without a constitutional amendment, these judges and local officials can continue to attempt to force States to accept same-sex marriages against the wishes of their own citizens."
The Statement of Administration Policy notes that activist judges could even strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan vote in 1996. When such activism is handed down from the nation's courts, the White House says, "the only alternative left for the people's voice to be heard is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only law a court cannot overturn."
The Role of Judges
In the ongoing debate in the Senate, amendment supporters -- like the White House -- are calling attention to the role of judicial activism in the controversy over same-sex marriage. GOP Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky told his colleagues that advocates of homosexual marriage are leaving the people out of the process.
"These extremists have devised a clever strategy to override public opinion and to force a redefinition of marriage on the nation through the court system," the Republican lawmaker said. "Because they knew they could not make their case through elected legislatures, they decided to work through an unaccountable official in hand-picked areas of this country."Bunning said the extremists have backed supporters of traditional moral values into a corner and forced the amendment process to begin. He also directed his comments to what he sees as a major root fot he threat to marriage: un-elected judges.
"I do not know the reason why these judges believe that they are so wise and how they cannot see the dangerous consequences of their actions," he stated. "But they now threaten our way of life, and it's up to us to act to ensure that the American people have the opportunity to decide what is right for the society they live in."
He left little doubt about the seriousness of the situation. "Our nation faces a potential disaster -- and I hope my colleagues in the Senate realize that we have a responsibility to affirm the ideal of marriage and [to] protect one of the most basic building blocks of our society: the family."
More Debate
Pro-family Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania touched on the issue of children during the Senate debate when he told his listeners that legalizing same-sex marriage was just another step in the denigration of traditional marriage. "And so we continue to get sort of farther away from the ideal -- and when we do that, children suffer and cultures die," Santorum said.
And Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas said traditional marriage must be protected for sake of the children in the home. "The government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to ensure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children," he said. "Social science on this matter is conclusive: children need both a mom and a dad."
Meanwhile, one of the basic arguments put forth by opponents of the FMA is that the definition of marriage is an issue individual states should decide -- and therefore, there is no need for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. But Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah challenged that argument, saying it ignores the fact that nearly 40 states have already passed their own version of a Defense of Marriage Act.
"If my colleagues believe that the states ought to decide these matters, then they have to acknowledge that the 40 states that have should trump the 4-to-3 decision by an activist Massachusetts Supreme Court," Hatch said.
Despite these arguments, the Democratic leadership in the Senate has vowed to filibuster a vote on the amendment, much like they have filibustered President Bush's conservative nominees for the federal bench. That move requires a "cloture vote" that would cut off debate and force a vote. Washington, DC, veteran Gary Bauer says there is only one way to interpret that procedural vote:
"Senators who support traditional marriage will vote for cloture. Senators who support homosexual marriage will vote against cloture," he says.
Bauer and several other pro-family leaders are currently in the nation's capital, meeting personally with senators. He says one of the objectives of those meetings is to let the senators know they are being watched -- and that pro-family leaders will do everything they can to make sure senators' constituents know how they voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
