• Letter from Chairman Richard Wilkins
• Please contribute to help defend marriage
• Massachusetts Marriage Watch
• Polls show growing opposition to legalizing same sex marriage
• Congressional Watch
• "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia": making the case against same sex marriage
• Articles and items of interest

During this past month we have seen a flood of significant developments in the fight over legalizing same sex marriage. However, the impact of these developments is decidedly mixed for those of us committed to defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Among these developments:

• The California Supreme Court initially declined to issue an immediate injunction to stop the spectacle of San Francisco officials flouting state law in performing several thousand “marriages,” but the court finally did so. However, the court also agreed to hear arguments on whether the prohibition on same sex marriages violates the state’s constitution, potentially setting up another crisis if the court finds that it does.
   
• On March 11th, the Massachusetts state legislature finally gave preliminary approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the amendment would also establish civil unions for same sex couples in the state’s constitution. It faces one more major vote on March 29th before it can be passed on to the next step in the amendment process, which is to be adopted by the next Massachusetts legislature as well.
   
• Local governments in Washington, Oregon, New York and New Jersey either began issuing same sex marriage licenses or threatened to do so. In all these instances, the government officials were stopped from actually performing any “marriages” either before or immediately after they began to do so. In New York, one mayor and two clergy now face charges for performing marriages in defiance of state law. However, the Attorney General of New York, while upholding state law, said that in his personal opinion, the law limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman did violate the state’s constitution.

The massive news coverage given to these kinds of developments have alerted even more average Americans to the threats to marriage, educated them on the current events and legal decisions regarding the issue, and galvanized many more of them to action. Our Web site is experiencing an increasing number of “hits” and our e-mails to us have increased exponentially. Other pro-marriage groups are reporting similar increased interest. It would have cost the pro-marriage groups millions of dollars to purchase the advertising to increase public awareness and concern about same sex marriage to the level that this media coverage has done at no cost.

Recent polls show that this coverage is having a positive impact. The number of Americans who oppose same sex marriage continues to increase and the polls also show that a growing majority would support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. As public opinion focuses on this problem and opposition continues to build, more politicians are taking clear positions in opposition to legalizing same sex marriage, just as President Bush recently did when he said he now supports a constitutional amendment.

Not coincidently, activity on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage is increasing in Congress as well. This past week a Senate subcommittee held its third hearing on the need for a constitutional amendment. The first hearing in the House should take place within a week. The sponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the only amendment so far introduced in Congress, have announced that they have modified their language slightly to clarify that the amendment would allow state legislatures to enact same sex civil union laws. To date, 118 members of the House are sponsors of that amendment.

One other significant development was the announcement by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch that he and several other senators were working on a different constitutional amendment, one that would not specifically define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Many pro-family groups immediately condemned his approach, threatening to split support for any amendment.

One note of a “housekeeping” nature. Because things are developing so rapidly on this issue, we are going to take the suggestion of a number of readers and start putting out the Defend Marriage Newsletter twice a month rather than monthly. This will allow us to make the newsletters shorter to update you on a more timely basis. Of course, we will continue to put out alerts and special notices whenever necessary.

Without doubt there are a series of very tough and critical fights ahead of us in our efforts to defend marriage. But we should all be somewhat heartened by how things are going so far in this absolute “must win” fight to protect our future.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman

Homosexual activists and others pushing to legalize same sex marriage are contributing millions of dollars to achieve their goal. The harsh political realities are that unless we can raise the funds to adequately make the pro-marriage, pro-family case in this debate, we will lose.

Please make as generous a contribution as you can to help Defend Marriage. You can easily do this securely online by going to the secure contribution link on the United Families International Web site. (Defend Marriage is a project of United Families International). This page on the Web site also has a form you can print out to mail in a contribution.

If you would like to designate your entire contribution to United Families to go to the Defend Marriage Project, simply make it in any amount ending in 4 cents, $25.04, $100.04, $1,000,000.04, etc., whatever you can afford. United Families International is a 501(c)(3) organization and contributions are tax deductible.

Thank you for whatever financial help you can provide!

While the reports of illegal same sex marriages or marriage licenses being issued in a handful of states and communities around the country have grabbed most recent headlines, events in Massachusetts continue to be more substantively important in the fight to protect marriage. Action in the commonwealth is proceeding on two tracks. One is the ongoing effort to begin the process of amending the state’s constitution. In a second session of the legislature meeting as a constitutional convention on March 11th, lawmakers gave preliminary approval to an amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman but to also provide for civil union benefits for same sex couples.

While the amendment appears to have passed by a comfortable 136-62 margin, those voting for the measure included about three dozen same sex marriage proponents who voted for the bill largely to prevent a tougher amendment moving forward. They will likely vote against it in the next constitutional convention meeting scheduled for March 29, leaving its final fate uncertain. Same sex marriage opponents also plan to offer several amendments, including trying to split the amendment into two parts, with one amendment defining traditional marriage and one providing for same sex civil unions.

The second focus of activity in Massachusetts is the possible actions Governor Mitt Romney might take to try to stop legal same sex marriages from taking place on May 17th as directed by the Supreme Judicial Court. If the constitutional convention does finally vote out an amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, Romney is expected to ask the court to stay implementing its ruling on same sex marriage until the voters have a chance to act in 2006. If the convention fails to move an amendment forward, he is said to be considering other, unspecified, actions.

Whichever way the constitutional convention goes, Governor Romney will immediately become the single most important public official in the nation in the fight to defend marriage. If Massachusetts begins performing legal same sex marriages it will set up a series of legal challenges around the country to force other states to also recognize them as legal. If, however, he is successful in delaying them, it will buy more time for Congress to act on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to solve the problem.

A good summary of the action of the most recent constitutional convention and the political situation in Massachusetts is available here.

Opinion Polls Show Continuing Tide Against Same Sex Marriage

No doubt fueled in part by the illegal and “in-your-face” actions of a number of local officials in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New Paltz, New York and other places to issue same sex marriage licenses or actually perform same sex marriages, public opinion polls show public opinion hardening against legalizing same sex marriage. These polls consistently find that by about a 2 to 1 margin, Americans oppose such a move. While the support for a constitutional amendment to prevent legalizing same sex marriage varies more widely from poll to poll, they also show consistent and rising majority support as well.

Most significantly, moving into the election season these polls show that this is the major social “wedge” issue among the electorate, meaning that it is an issue on which a voter will vote for or against a candidate based on the candidate’s position on that issue alone. It outranks other traditional social wedge issues such as abortion and gun control, with about 40% of respondents identifying it as a wedge issue for them.

Article summarizing a recent CBS News poll here.

Complete CBS News poll is available here.

There have been several significant congressional developments related to passing a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

• Sponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the only constitutional amendment introduced in the House and Senate, announced that they were making a minor modification of the language of their bill to make it clear that state legislatures would not be prohibited from enacting civil union laws covering same sex couples. Article available here.
   
• In another significant development, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that he was considering introducing a competing constitutional amendment to try to solve the same sex marriage problem. His amendment would specify that only state legislatures or the people of a state could define marriage for that state, cutting the courts out of the process. It would also specify that nothing in the United States Constitution requires that the benefits of marriage must be conveyed to any union other than that of a man and a woman, to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from finding the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
  
  Article on Hatch’s position available here.
   
• Texas Senator John Cornyn’s Judiciary Constitution subcommittee held a third day of hearings on the need to propose a constitutional amendment. Witness statements here.

“The End of Marriage in Scandinavia”: Making the Case Against Same Sex Marriage

Writing in the Weekly Standard Magazine, researcher Stanley Kurtz analyzes the “End of Marriage in Scandanvia” and what it portends for any country that legalizes same sex marriage. Kurtz notes: “Not coincidentally, these (Scandinavian) countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.”

Full article here.

We have posted several thoughtful articles and commentary on the same sex marriage issue here.