Religious Conservatives Hail Bush's Renewed Call for Marriage Amendment
by Jenni Parker
June 6, 2006
(AgapePress) - - As the U.S. Senate began debate on the federal Marriage Protection Amendment this week, President George W. Bush urged support for the measure, which many observers expect to fall short of the required two-thirds support needed for passage. With this latest call for a constitutional ban on homosexual "marriage," the chief executive reaffirmed his commitment to a cause close to the heart of religious conservative "values voters."
In a White House address on Monday, Bush told the politically diverse crowd of scholars, community advocates, and pro-family and religious leaders present that, although they came from many backgrounds and faith traditions, they shared a common belief. They were united, he said, in their understanding that marriage is "the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges."
The president went on to say he is proud to stand with those who "strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman" and is calling on Congress to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) and send it to the states for ratification "so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs -- in the hands of the American people."
A marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary, Bush contended, "because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice" by imposing their "arbitrary will" on the people. Such an amendment would not, as some opponents have argued, take the issue of how marriage is to be defined away from the states, he explained, but would take the issue away from the courts and put it directly before the nation's citizens.
"This national question requires a national solution," President Bush observed. "And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts, but from the people of the United States."
Religious Conservatives Rally in Wake of Bush's Call for MPA
Several religious conservatives have responded enthusiastically to Bush's words in support of the MPA. Associated Press (AP) reports that Rev. Richard Richardson, a member of the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston and Alliance for Marriage, says he is confident a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage will eventually be passed.
"They never told us that the road would be easy," Richardson notes, "but we've come this far; with God on our side, we know we're going to make it. So I'm pleased to stand with Americans of every race, color, and creed in the Alliance for Marriage." He adds that he and other black ministers in Boston are steadfastly opposed to homosexual marriage, even though it is legal in Massachusetts.
And Elder Russell Nelson of the Mormon church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke at a news conference yesterday, saying his church joins others in supporting the federal MPA. "We share a duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God. The time has now come when the constitutional amendment is needed in this country," he said.
In response to Bush's Monday address, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission remarked, "The President of the United States has once again illustrated ... that he understands what's at stake in the Marriage Protection Amendment debate."
And what is at stake, Land asserts, are "two absolutely critical elements of our society." The first, he says, is the definition of marriage, which he calls the "basic building block of human society," the redefinition of which will "have disastrous effects on marriage, on children, and on society."
The second critical issue that Bush understands, the Southern Baptist leader contends, is that "not only marriage but 'government of the people, by the people' and 'for the people' is at stake here." Judiciaries at the state and federal level are "trying to force upon the American people something they find abhorrent," he says, and he agrees with the president that it is time for a federal constitutional remedy.
"Our forefathers reserved for the American people, not American judges, the right to determine social policy for the nation," Land says. "And when judges get it wrong, our forefathers gave us a method to give the judges further instruction on how we would be governed. It's called a constitutional amendment."
Potential Fallout of Redefining Marriage
Some religious conservatives' calls for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage have focused on the negative consequences of failing to protect marriage from redefinition. Rabbi Nathan Diament, public policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, told Associated Press reporters that his community fears congregations with traditional beliefs will face legal reprisals if they voice opposition to homosexual marriage.
"We are very concerned," Diament said, "deeply concerned that any traditional synagogue or church or other community institution, should gay marriage be legalized, will be confronted with a spate of lawsuits which will effectively put them out of business."
But the Orthodox Jewish leader believes that would only be the beginning of the kind of legal pressure that would be placed on traditional religious groups if marriage were redefined. "It will follow from there to challenging the tax-exempt status of churches and synagogues and other congregations," he says.
"It will follow from there," Diament continues, "to things that we've seen overseas already, such as attacking the free-speech rights of clergy who voice traditional religious perspectives on gay issues." And, according to one Senate Republican, that concern is not unreasonable. U.S. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas noted in floor debate yesterday that when courts declare a right to homosexual marriage, it becomes illegal to disagree.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Brownback pointed out redefining marriage could affect the ability of religious groups to carry out their missions while remaining true to their beliefs. "It's already happening," he said, "as we've seen in Massachusetts, where Boston's Catholic Charities is being forced out of the adoption business entirely rather than violating church teachings on marriage and family.
The senator went on to assert that worse is likely to come, perhaps to the extent of seeing criticism of homosexual marriage banned as hate speech or churches being barred from performing any weddings unless they marry homosexual couples.
"Where courts impose a same-sex marriage regime as a constitutionally guaranteed right," Brownback declared, "a multitude of new religious liberty conflicts will inevitably arise at every point where the law touches marriage and is applied to individuals, businesses, non-profits, and even churches and synagogues."
Also, the Kansas lawmaker suggested, legalizing homosexual marriage would effectively force its acceptance on those who believe it is wrong. Churches and other religious organizations and institutions could eventually lose the right to define marriage as they always had, he warned.
"Religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, et cetera, will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all," Brownback said.
In Senator Brownback's view, a federal marriage amendment is needed not only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage but also to protect religious freedom. Nevertheless, Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans are expected to block a yes-or-no vote on the MPA this week, killing the measure for the year.
