LIBEL by New York Times

by J. Edward Pawlick

Reserve Yours Now!

Focus on the Family no longer has support in Washington for its proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution. It is distressing to see the family movement so split on any issue.

However, Focus is beginning to give the appearance that they may understand. One can only hope that they really do, and that this is not just a sham.

I had no contacts with any national organization until about a year ago when it became apparent that the national groups were becoming terribly divided over the proposed federal marriage amendment. Some questioned whether any amendment at all was necessary or advisable. They knew that no matter what they write, activist judges could always move everything around to their liking. Those people looked at any amendment as a crutch to substitute for an aroused citizenry.

Those who believed there should be an amendment wanted the effort done by increments, the same as most Republicans are always doing on a national level. They would protect the use of the word, "marriage," thus allowing any sort of domestic partnerships or gay unions. The others said that if you are going to use all your political capital and energize the citizens, you had to do it right. You couldn't mislead the citizens that way.

The brouhaha was started by the man who had been, for several years, the paid President of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is affiliated with Focus. He, Matt Daniels, was never very popular in this state. After being unsuccessful in changing anything here, he moved to Washington a few years back and began the Alliance for Marriage, which was dedicated to passing a "soft" Amendment, i.e., one that would protect only the word "marriage."

This was easy to sell to many politicians because it appeared to be the answer to helping marriage. They liked it because it gave them "cover" even though it didn't really do anything.

But the people in the trenches knew immediately that this was not good for those who really believed in traditional marriage.

Therefore, the three major family organizations besides Focus all opposed the amendment. They knew it didn't stand much chance of passage anyway. It requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate before it could be sent to the states. This is a long, complicated process that will require a lot of dedication from many citizens. The three family groups who opposed it were Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council and American Family Association.

Focus remained undecided for about a year. When it did decide that it favored the soft amendment, it became the two-ton gorilla, attempting to force everyone to follow its lead. Would you like to know what Focus said about those three organizations? They posted on their website that the amendment had broad support except for "a small handful of conservatives" who disagreed with them. They were not telling the truth to their supporters and they were alienating and splitting the movement. Are we to believe that Dr. Dobson knew that?

They replaced Atty. Ken Connor as the head of FRC this past summer with a sycophant who does whatever Focus wants. The AFA attempted to be a mediator but apparently has not changed its beliefs. CWA remained strongly against it.

Amendment Will Lose; Many Conservatives Oppose It

Focus will realize soon if it has not already done so, that it is going to lose this battle if it forces a showdown over Matt Daniels' failed initiative. The measure does not stand much chance of getting a 2/3 vote in any case. But it doesn't stand any chance at all in the present climate of division.

In addition to the family organizations, there are many other people against it. Although I have not checked any of these personally, the belief is that the following would oppose the measure as presently written, although they may be cautious about getting into a public fight with Focus:

-- Gary Bauer, the person who built FRC into a powerhouse before running for President of the United States. He now has his own organization, American Values.

-- Paul Weyrich, the long respected leader of the Free Congress Foundation, who has enormous respect among conservative leaders in Congress.

-- Bill Bennett, the former member of Reagan's cabinet who is now at the Heritage Foundation and Empower America.

-- Mike Farris, the President of Patrick Henry College and a national leader of the home school movement.

-- Chuck Colson, the respected leader of Prison Fellowship.

-- Don Wildmon, the founder and President of American Family Association, is attempting to serve as a peacemaker, but it is obvious he is not happy with the division.

Those are only a few of those who are said to oppose the Amendment

Dr. D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Ministries is not one to get into a public fight, but he did say in his December newsletter: "In recent months, there has been much debate in pro-family and Christian circles as to what type of constitutional firewall should be erected to safeguard marriage. In fact, this debate threatened to cripple the marriage amendment movement before it even gained much momentum in Congress. … However, a coalition of pro-family organizations, of which Coral Ridge Ministries is a part, is working to add language that will prohibit courts and legislatures from creating marriage substitutes like Vermont's 'civil unions' for homosexuals. I am hopeful that this debate -- an inevitable aspect of shaping legislation -- will secure the best possible vehicle to achieve our common goal of preserving the biblical definition of marriage. I further hope that all pro-family groups engaged in this debate will come together in a unified effort to save marriage in the coming year."

What Should An Amendment Say?

The man who has seen California devastated in the last three years tells me this: "In 2000, the voters passed Proposition 22, which purported to protect marriage for 'only a man and a woman.' As a statewide pro-family leader who delivered the language of Prop. 22 to the Attorney General, I ignorantly thought this would solve the problem. But I, the pro-family politicians, and even the expert attorneys, were wrong. In 2001, the California legislature gave away thirteen rights of marriage to 'domestic partners,' and in 2003, they gave away the rest of the state's marriage rights. Obviously, protecting the word 'marriage' is not enough."

He says that the wording of the amendment should be: "Neither the federal government nor any state or local government shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of non-marital relationships."

Attorney Jan Larue at CWA proposed the following wording over a year ago: "Marriage in the United States, whether entered into within or outside of the United States, shall consist only of the legal union of one man and one woman. Every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, subject to state laws based on age and consanguinity. Neither the United States nor any State, or subdivision thereof, shall confer any benefit, protection, right, or responsibility of marriage on unmarried couples, or groups."

Atty. Larue says we will have only one opportunity to pass an amendment. "Amending the U.S. Constitution is necessarily and understandably a rigorous task. If a marriage amendment is ratified, there will not be another. CWA believes that an amendment to preserve marriage should do more than preserve it in name only. Marriage should be preserved as the unique relationship that is the cornerstone and foundation of civilization. The FMA does not prevent legislative acts that would create civil unions that are counterfeit marriages. Although legally distinct from marriage, it is a distinction without a difference in all other respects."