Amendment Supporters Vow to Continue Fight for One Man-One Woman Marriage
by Ed Thomas, Jody Brown, and Bill Fancher
June 8, 2006
(AgapePress) - - The founder of a Mississippi-based pro-family group says traditional marriage supporters who are in the fight for the long haul aren't discouraged by yesterday's results in the U.S. Senate. Don Wildmon says the defeat of a move for cloture to end debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) and move it to the floor for a vote only helps voters identify senators who won't stand up for traditional marriage.
The attempt at cloture on the MPA on Wednesday morning fell short of the 60 votes needed due to 48 senators choosing not to advance it. Wildmon says while those four dozen senators stated various reasons, all related to a disbelief that traditional marriage was in danger. But he says senators were actually trying to avoid being put on the record so they could give their constituents a convenient answer.
"[They'll say] 'We didn't vote on the marriage amendment; we didn't have an opportunity. We couldn't get enough votes,'" the pro-family leader supposes. "It's an excuse. It's a political escape."
The final tally -- 49-48 -- fell roughly along party lines, with the sole Independent in the Senate and seven Republicans joining Democrats in rejecting a vote on the measure. Those crossover Republicans were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Judd Gregg and John Sununu of New Hampshire, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Maine's senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and presidential hopeful John McCain of Arizona. Wildmon has no soft words for those leaders.
"They didn't vote [for cloture] because they were cowards," he states emphatically. "They didn't have enough intestinal fortitude to let the people they represent know where they really stood."
The AFA chairman summed up his feelings with this comment: "The bottom line is this: you had 48 United States senators who voted in favor of allowing homosexuals to be married."
For that reason, he says it is urgent that the American public not allow those same elected officials to be correct in their gamble that voters will forget about this outcome by the time of the next Senate election cycle.
Joining Republicans on the "Yea" side of the vote were two Democrats: Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. One Republican was not present for the vote, and one religious leader says that senator's constituents should be annoyed by that.
"Chuck Hagel is a senator from a state [Nebraska] which had the values of 70 percent of its citizens negated by one federal judge when he threw out the Nebraska ban on same-sex marriage," notes Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Hagel's absence should be particularly galling to Nebraskans." Seventy percent of that state's voters approved a marriage protection amendment to their constitution in 2000.
A Long -- and Worthwhile -- Endeavor
Still, Land -- like other pro-family leaders -- is not totally discouraged. As he puts it: "One doesn't eat an apple in one bite." The SBC leader notes that most amendment proposals fall short on their first or second introduction. But those who understand that a federal constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the institution of marriage from activist judges must "redouble" their efforts, he says.
Dr. James Dobson agrees. Conservatives across the country, he says, are committed to doing "what it takes, for as long as it takes" to protect traditional marriage from "renegade judges."
"The 48 judges who voted against the MPA ... have left the definition of marriage at the mercy of activist courts intent on forcing a politically correct agenda on our nation," says the Focus on the Family founder in a press release. "Judges already have struck down marriage-protection laws and amendments in Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Georgia. They will continue to do so unless checked."
Amendment supporter Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families says he was prepared for the outcome of yesterday's vote. "First of all, we knew that virtually the entire liberal Democratic Party in the Senate would vote against it," he says, "so right there we had a cap on the number of votes we would get.
"And we had a half dozen or so Republicans jump ship, which is not surprising," he continues. "We've seen that over and over again on votes."
Bauer notes that the process for amending the Constitution can be a long and difficult one, requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and then ratification by at least 38 states. "Unfortunately," he says, "the courts of our country are continually amending the Constitution by judicial fiat."
Supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment expect it will be coming up for another vote in the Senate before the end of this congressional session. In addition, House Majority Leader John Boehner is on record as saying that "significant numbers" of House members want a vote. That could come as early as next month, according to news reports.
