| |
|
|
| |
 |
Summer, 2003 |
|
What a difference a month can make!
Dear Reader;
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Texas' sodomy law just over a month ago, public attention and concern has focused more
intensely on the threats posed by same sex marriage than anyone could have hoped. Even though the case, Lawrence v. Texas, only
dealt directly with state sodomy laws, it was widely-and accurately-reported that the reasoning of the five-justice majority
raises serious question whether a wide range of state laws governing other sexual activities, as well as the institution of
marriage itself, would survive scrutiny by the nation's highest court. The publicity surrounding this decision, together with
other recent events such as Canada's move towards legalizing homosexual marriage, has triggered an extraordinary public backlash
against the demands of homosexual activists and their allies. We have posted a short analysis of this shift in public opinion on
our Website here.
The "discovery" by the justices in the majority on Lawrence that sodomy between consenting adults in private is somehow
constitutionally protected is a very bad legal precedent. But the almost imperial scope of their reasoning in this decision
also poses a clear threat to our constitutional democracy. Not only does it challenge the carefully balanced separation of
powers among the three branches of the federal government but it also threatens the division of power and jurisdiction between
the federal government and the states. Both are reasons for all Americans to be very concerned about this decision. It is now
clear to me that adopting a constitutional amendment is critical not only to protect marriage, but to help preserve the
Constitution as well. (For a more detailed analysis of the threats posed by this decision, please go to the
"Recent Articles" section of our Web site.
As we highlighted in our recent "Special Alert," President Bush also has weighed into the fight, calling for "codifying" the
definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Based on a recent conversation I had with one of his most senior
aides, I am hopeful that the President will conclude that a constitutional amendment is the only certain way to protect marriage
and that he will back this effort. If he does, the "bully pulpit" of the presidency can be a critical resource in winning this
fight. I hope that everyone has taken the time to thank President Bush for his strong support. (A copy of the Special Alert
explaining how to do this and giving the President's exact quote is posted on the
"Action Alerts" page of our Website.)
In other encouraging political developments, a number of key senators, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, have called for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. An amendment will be
introduced in the Senate shortly after the August recess and hearings could come as early as September.
The recent strong statement by the Catholic Church opposing same sex marriage will have important international impacts
including here in the U.S. Of particular significance is the Vatican's call to Catholic lawmakers to oppose same sex marriage
as a moral duty. Other news events, including extensive press coverage of the victory celebrations staged by homosexuals
following their victory in the Lawrence case, the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop by the American Episcopal Church,
and the frequent reporting on American homosexuals going to Canada to be married with the avowed intent of returning and
demanding that their marriage be recognized as legal in the U.S. all have offered further opportunities to educate the public on
the threat same sex marriage poses to our society.
It is remarkable that all of this attention has been generated while we still await the one event that would focus public
attention and concern even more intensely on this issue. Any day now, the Massachusetts Supreme Court will hand down a decision
in the case of Goodridge v. Massachusetts. It is widely anticipated that this decision will legalize same sex marriage in the
Commonwealth. If that happens, the United States would become only the fourth nation in the world, after the Netherlands,
Belgium and Canada, in which same sex marriage is legal in at least one of its political subdivisions. For those of us committed
to defending marriage and the natural family, it would mean that a critical battle in the culture war will have been joined. The
outcome of that battle literally will dictate the future of our society. We will be sending you an analysis of the decision once
it comes down.
One other item of note. Defend Marriage is helping pro-marriage activists in Canada in their fight stop the legalization of same
sex marriage nationwide in that country. Their Web site,
www.defendmarriagecanada.org, should be available within the next few days. We
certainly encourage Canadian readers to support their efforts. Citizens of other countries can help by spreading the word about
this effort in Canada to any Canadian contacts they might have.
Because legalizing same sex marriage would weaken marriage and the natural family, it would strike at the fundamental
institutions that have been the foundation of every healthy and resilient society throughout history. Citizens of every country
who care about the future of their societies must do everything they can to protect these vital institutions.
For most of us, this will be the most significant battle in the ongoing culture wars that we will ever be involved in. We must
win it! Working together, we can.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman
P.S. You can help spread the word about the importance of taking action to protect marriage by forwarding this newsletter on to
as many others as you can. IF THIS NEWSLETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO YOU, WE INVITE YOU TO GO TO OUR WEB SITE,
www.defendmarriage.org, AND SIGN UP TO RECEIVE IT DIRECTLY. |
|
CONGRESS WATCH
Highlighting significant developments in the political
arena.
President George Bush, in response to a question at his most recent news conference, endorsed codifying the definition of marriage
as the union of a man and a woman. While he did not specify how that would be codified and said that he had lawyers working on
the best way to do that. Most legal and political observers believe the only way to do it is to amend the Constitution. With the
attention he can command from the media and the public, an endorsement of an amendment to protect marriage by the President would
be a tremendous asset in getting a constitutional amendment adopted. His active support would also ensure that amending the
Constitution to protect marriage would be a major campaign issue in the 2004 cycle. The transcript of that portion of the
Presidents news conference is posted on our Web site here.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J.Res. 56, now has 75 co-sponsors, three times the number of co-sponsors it had at the end of
the last Congress. An analysis of the amendment and a list of the co-sponsors are available on our Web site
here.
In recent weeks, two key senators have indicated their support for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Tennessee
Senator Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader and a close Bush ally, has endorsed heterosexual marriage and called for a
constitutional amendment. Article here. Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has also endorsed amending the Constitution. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over
constitutional amendments. Article here.
It is widely reported that a constitutional amendment to protect marriage will be introduced in the Senate when Congress returns
after the August recess. The Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold hearings in
September.
In a very tough statement, the Vatican has reiterated its opposition to legalizing same sex marriage and has specifically called
on Catholic lawmakers worldwide to oppose legislation that would do that. The Vatican calls such opposition a moral obligation.
The "indignant" reaction of a number of Catholic lawmakers in the U.S. who are sympathetic to the demands of homosexual activists
demonstrates how significant the church's opposition can be in pushing through a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
The church's position statement is available here.
The findings of a recent Gallup Poll showing an extraordinary shift in public opinion on homosexual issues in the weeks following
the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision is causing major political ripples. The poll found that 57% of respondents now oppose
granting "civil union" rights to homosexuals compared to only 40% favorable. That represents a shift of 17 points from May of
this year. Presumably, the opposition to same sex marriage would be even higher. In other findings, those polled who thought
homosexual sex should be legal also dropped precipitously as did the percentage of respondents who believed that homosexuality
should be considered an "acceptable alternative lifestyle." We have posted an analysis of these findings on our Web site
here.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee has issued an excellent political and legal analysis of the same sex marriage issue. It
gives some useful history on the issue, examines the likely legal strategy homosexual activists will follow to attempt to force
all states to recognize same sex marriage and gives some interesting insight into the politics of the issue. It is available
here. |
|
NEW ON THE WEB SITE:
A number of good recent articles on protecting marriage are now
linked from the "Recent Articles" page. We update
this page frequently.
A new feature on the site is "How To Talk About Defending Marriage." It
will provide short answers to the arguments of homosexual activists opposing a constitutional amendment and other items that will
be useful in discussing the marriage amendment issue.
A brief analysis of a very significant Gallup Poll showing increasing opposition to the homosexual agenda is posted
here.
We will be posting the lists of co-sponsors to legislation to amend the Constitution to protect marriage and updating them
periodically. Currently, the only legislation introduced is the Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J.Res.56, in the House. The
current list of co-sponsors is available here. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|