[VANITY COLUMN] Preventing Gay Marriage

While liberal judges strike down law after law after law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, polls show that most Americans are against legitimizing gay marriage. This fact has led conservative congressmen to draw up a Federal Marriage Amendment to "protect traditional marriage," and rightly so. Activist judges have repeatedly shown themselves to be out of step with the Constitution; apparently, this is not enough. Now, they are proving to be out of step with public opinion--making the Judicial branch of government increasingly resemble a web of Communist dictators.

However, the margin of support for continuing to legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is just a little too close for comfort, and it seems that proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment will have to really press for support to pass and ratify the amendment at all. To succeed, Republican legislators will need to do to things. First, they must draw up an appropriate, passable amendment. The latest issue of National Review magazine features an article called, "The Right Amendment," in which they draw out guidelines for the proper goals and wording of such an amendment.

Second, Republicans must convince the American public at large that the need for such an amendment is urgent. In order to do so, they will need to a) draw up a solid, logical case in favor of defining marriage as a heterosexual union that will hit home with any reasonable person willing to listen, and then b) press upon said listeners the need for an amendment to accomplish the task at hand. I believe it will be possible to get the amendment ratified; however, Republicans must remember that there isn't a lot of room for error.

As to point a), most anti-gay-marriage proponents have plenty of arguments. They argue that our country was found on Christian principle, and that we should not be sanctioning actions which violate Christian morals. They argue about the sacridity of the institution of marriage, and the cheapening of said institute by allowing homosexual marriage. They point out the various complications involved with same-sex lifestyles and argue that allowing homosexuals to marry, much less adopt children and raise families, will thus bring about disasters.

These are, indeed, important points, but they must take the backseat to another argument. If they don't, liberals could take us by the throat arguing that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone by marrying and that we don't have a right to impose upon their civil liberties. The key to fending them off is to, above all else, turn their own poison back on them. We must stress first and foremost that marriage is a PUBLIC institution and that it would not be right to force a huge percentage--a majority--of the population to recognize as legitimate a behavior that they consider immoral.

To further avoid playing into the trap of, "Well, aren't you conservatives in favor of less government? Shouldn't more things be legal?" we must quit using the term, "legalized gay marriage." Especially since the Supreme Court struck down state laws against sodomy, there is absolutely no law which would prevent homosexuals from entering into a cohabitation agreement and then having a liberal minister perform a marriage ceremony for them. They simply cannot get a marriage license and have said marriage or, if you prefer, "civil union," sanctioned by the state. In essence, we must argue that forcing people to recognize what they perceive distasteful behavior as illegitimate (through special accomodations for married couples, marriage benefits, etc.) is therefore a violation of THEIR civil rights, and that no civil rights violation is committed against a homosexual couple by denying them a marriage license.

Then, once we have the primary reasoning nailed in, we can go back to the debate about the negative impact of homosexual marriage licenses on society and on the family. From there, the final ingredient will be to convince the public that their right to not recognize homosexual "marriages" is under attack by activist judges. This will be a cynch; one need only cite the cases of Hawaii, Vermont, and more recently, Massachussetts. From there, we will need a steady influx of well-executed paperwork, as well as a GOP victory in November 2004. This may be a little tricky, but Republican legislators can definitely use this issue to their advantage.

This is the house committee that has the Federal Marriage Amendment.
House bill: H.J. Res. 56
This is at www.house.gov

It has to get out of the BOTH Judiciary Committees first.

These members count the letters of support.

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

Below is the Senate Committee.
The senate has S.J. Res. 26

Committee on the Judiciary image- panel 1

HOME >

MEMBERS

Orrin G. Hatch CHAIRMAN, UTAH	Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley IOWA	Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA	Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Jon Kyl ARIZONA	Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine OHIO	Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA	Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA	Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK
Larry Craig IDAHO	Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA	John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS

BELOW IS A SAMPLE LETTER FOR ANYONE TO USE, PLEASE ALTER
TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR SUPPORT FOR FMA.

Dear [ Decision Maker ]

I support the Federal marriage amendment. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.

This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will allso protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public instutiton which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the contitution what we have today.

This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the constititon is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now. This amendment makes LESS government and puts this issue back to the individual states.

Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attoryn and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are redily available for nominal cost or free on the internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consentual behavior.

Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marraige.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.