wfn.org | [PCUSANEWS] Opponents of same-sex marriage gain momentum, eye

[PCUSA NEWS <PCUSA.NEWS@ECUNET.ORG>]

Note #8560 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

04490
November 4, 2004

Opponents of same-sex marriage gain momentum, eye federal amendment

by G. Jeffrey MacDonald
Religion News Service

WASHINGTON - Riding high on President Bush's re-election and on decisive
victories to ban gay marriage in 11 states, activists in the traditional
marriage movement said Nov. 3 they now have a mandate to claim their ultimate
prize: an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

	"The American people are now trying whatever democratic means are
available to them. This is a dress rehearsal for what is to come. We are
going to win," said Matt Daniels, president of the Washington-based Alliance
for Marriage, which authored an ill-fated federal constitutional amendment
earlier this year.

	Voters approved constitutional amendments traditionally defining
marriage in every state where they were on the ballot: Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon and Utah.

	In Oregon, gay marriage advocates had concentrated vast resources
with hopes for a single win. It didn't happen. Margins ranged from 7
percentage points in Oregon to 36 percentage points in Mississippi.

	For gay marriage activists, whose cause gained unprecedented momentum
in February with a Massachusetts court decision affirming the right to wed,
the returns marked an occasion to pause, caucus and regroup. New York
City-based Lambda Legal, which represents plaintiffs in gay issue cases,
urged caution in challenging new amendments in court.

	"While the picture looks bleak in states where constitutions have
been amended," said an official Lambda Legal statement, "it could be even
worse with court rulings upholding those amendments."

	Other gay marriage supporters disagreed. They cited Louisiana, where
a state court last month struck down a marriage-related constitutional
amendment passed by 78 percent of voters. And they reaffirmed their faith in
courts as the proper arena in which to pursue marriage rights.

	"I have a fundamental problem with fact that the rights of a
disfavored minority are being voted on," said Ron Schlittler, interim
executive director of the Washington-based Parents, Families & Friends of
Lesbians and Gays. "I'll be interested to hear from the legal experts what
our options are."

	On the right, some credited the gay marriage issue for mobilizing a
strong turnout that swelled Bush's vote totals and strengthened the GOP's
majority in Congress.

	"There is no doubt," said Roberta Combs of the Washington-based
Christian Coalition of America, "that because four radical left-wing
Massachusetts judges ruled that homosexual 'marriages' are constitutional
last year, there was a conservative backlash which played a major role in the
election outcome."

	Gary Glenn, who led the campaign to amend Michigan's constitution,
joined a conference call Wednesday with more than 20 leaders in the
traditional marriage movement nationally. He said they agreed on a two-part
agenda: amend the U.S. Constitution and lean on Bush to stack the Supreme
Court with traditional marriage supporters.

	"We have a sense of mission and responsibility," Glenn said, "to make
sure the victory given by 'marriage moms' all across America is not left on
the table. ... It's necessary because five members of the United States
Supreme Court could wipe out everything done on the state level."

	In a takeoff on the "soccer moms" who may have decided prior
elections, Glenn suggested mothers who oppose gay marriage had delivered wins
on ballot initiatives. These mothers joined, he said, a burgeoning alliance
of white evangelicals, conservative Roman Catholics and African-American
Protestants for whom gay marriage is like abortion: "non-negotiable."

	What worked on the state level could work on a national level as
well, according to R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

	"I think the first impact of this will be a shakeup of how Congress
looks at this issue," Mohler said. "It's going to be hard for a senator from
a state with 70 or 80 percent of the vote in favor of marriage (in Tuesday's
balloting) to vote against an amendment in support of marriage."

	But passing a U.S. constitutional amendment won't be easy.
The U.S. House of Representatives handily defeated a marriage amendment
proposal earlier this year by a vote of 227-186. For an amendment to pass, it
must win a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and receive
ratification by three-fourths of the states.

	"Whether they can sustain the effort to amend the federal
Constitution, which is very hard to do and very cumbersome, is yet to be
seen," said John Green, a political scientist who studies religious issues at
the University of Akron's Bliss Institute. "It might work the other way,
where people say, 'We passed a constitutional amendment in my state, and we
don't have gay marriages here. Let's quit while we're ahead.'"

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please send an email to
pcusanews-subscribe-request@halak.pcusa.org or
pcusanews-unsubscribe-request@halak.pcusa.org

To contact the owner of the list, please send an email to
pcusanews-request@halak.pcusa.org