Why Do We Need The Federal Marriage Amendment

6 06 2006

Yesterday, I received the following email from Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D., Founder and President of Alliance For Marriage:

Today, I had the honor of joining other AFM coalition leaders for a private meeting with the President prior to his address to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by the Alliance for Marriage.

Some of you may have seen the live coverage of AFM’s press conference from the U.S. Capitol on C-SPAN earlier today. The leaders of AFM’s broad and diverse coalition — a picture of support for marriage in America across every racial and cultural boundary line — addressed a packed audience of national media with nearly a dozen network and cable news cameras present.

As I sat opposite the president at today’s private meeting in the White House — surrounded by leaders from all of the communities in our coalition — I urged the president to remember that our cause is one that unifies America. I mentioned my own experience of being raised by a single mother on welfare in Spanish Harlem — and remarked that young people who come backgrounds like mine still dream the dream of having their own children raised in a home with a mother and a father.

The president said: “You grew up in Spanish Harlem? . . . We come from very different places.”

“I responded: “Yes, Mr. President, but the institution of marriage — and the dream of children raised in a home with a mother and a father — bridges the gap between where you come from and where I come from.”

It was a great day for our movement that I will not soon forget. I have never felt better about our nation and our President.

While some see this as the President’s way of reaching out to his conservative base to make up for perceived slack on immigration, I do not. I see how the timing might generate such perceptions, but most do not feel this way. I am glad to see the President pushing for the FMA and there is no better time than now.

Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Senators Allen, Allard, and Vitter, joined with Alliance for Marriage coalition leaders at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, May 25, 2006. Dr. Matt Daniels began the conference reminding attendees, (and a full complement of American media), that the mission of the Alliance for Marriage is to ensure that more children in America are raised in a home with a mother and a father.

“Marriage is what makes fatherhood more than a biological event. Marriage is the social glue that unites the two halves of the human race to share in the enterprise of parenting–increasing the chance that children will be raised with a mother and a father.” said Dr. Daniels.

The Marriage Protection Amendment, written and sponsored by the Alliance for Marriage, will establish a national standard for defining marriage as the union of one man and one women.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist then addressed the conference, announcing that Senate debate on AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment would begin in the first week of June. Senator Frist:

“The people surrounding me who represent thousands and thousands of people understand that marriage is the cornerstone of our society. This institution, more than any other, concerns the well-being of our future, of our children, of the states that my colleagues and I represent — indeed of this country…We’ve got to do more than talk. We’ve got to do more than say “These are our beliefs.” We’ve got to do more than say “These are the beliefs of the American people.” We need to act. If not we move in the opposite direction. To allow the courts to redefine marriage is to suppress, to discount, to ignore the voices of the American people, to ignore the votes of the American people who have overwhelmingly voted to preserve marriage solely as that union between a man and a woman.”

Senator George Allen:

“Unfortunately we see unelected judges usurping the right of the people to express their views and their values. Matt mentioned the case just last year in Nebraska where the people of Nebraska overwhelmingly — over 70% — voted to define in their constitution marriage as between a man and a woman. And an unelected federal judge — appointed for life — ruled that unconstitutional. So we need a constitutional amendment — a federal marriage amendment — to protect the will and the views and the values of the people in the states. There will be those who say this is a state’s rights issue, and it is! It is protecting what we believe in our respective states.”

Rev. Sam Rodriguez, the President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference explained:

“For several decades, America has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused by family disintegration. And an overwhelming body of social science data has established that America’s greatest social problems — violent crime, welfare dependency, and child poverty — track more closely with family disintegration than they do with any other social variable, including race and income level.”

Bishop Harry Jackson, founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, brought focus to the conference when he explained:

“Throughout America, the institution of marriage is suffering. As a leader in our nation’s religious community, I cannot sit idly by,” said Bishop Jackson. “Cross-culturally, virtually every known human society understands marriage as a union of male and female. Now is the time to educate and activate our leaders on the importance of the sanctity of marriage.”

Senator Wayne Allard summarized the good news as well as the challenge before us:

“The good news is that we are continuing to see growing support for the Marriage Protection Amendment. . . . Even though we have popular support all over the United States, the one area where we continue to have grave concern is through the courts. The Amendment I am putting forward defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and then the second sentence limits the power of the courts. The important thing I think we need to keep in mind is that the courts are bound and determined to change what we think of as the traditional family.”

It’s the second sentence of the FMA that drives me to support the FMA, otherwise, I’d be open to leaving it to the states.

I am not in favor of casting judgment on homosexuals, nor do I wish they would vanish, but I cannot support public servants that push their lifestyle on me. I will not push mine on them so I expect reciprocal behavior.

La Shawn Barber cites Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and offers this:

Consenting adults can do whatever they want to and with each other. In
theory, I don’t have a problem with this, but when homosexuals want to tear up the foundation of society — traditional marriage and the family — I take great issue with it. I will continue speaking out against homosexual “marriage” as often and as loudly as I can.

“They” say the Fourteenth Amendment gives homosexuals the right to marry. The pertinent section reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of la
w; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the FMA is enacted, it amends the Constitution, nullifiying this as an argument. If it a version passes that leaves it to the states, then this section, pertaining to homosexual marriage, is again nullified. If nothing passes, the Fourteenth is still not a valid argument because marriage is not a privilege. It is a civil contract with legal status. Preventing two homosexuals from marrying into a non-existant legal status is not a violation of the Fourteenth.

Homosexuals will continue to choose their lifestyle and for that reason, I will support a similar “civil union” of sorts that offers insurance and tax benefits. But beyond that, I do not support, and that includes the rearing of children.

Stop The ACLU was cautious and then supportive.
Others: Expose The Left has Michelle Malkin’s debate on The O’Reilly Factor.
Talk Wisdom wants to start in Massachusetts: “The Massachusett’s “gay” marriage law can still be overturned through the legislature or by ballot box (where it should have been decided by the people in the first place!) so even though it might be more difficult in such circumstances, it’s not impossible.”




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: