James Dobson and 'Focus on the Family' Continue to Divide Family Movement

February 2003 Print Edition
By MassNews Staff
In a continuing effort to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment despite the opposition of the other three, national, family organizations, James Dobson and "Focus on the Family" made more divisive comments about the other groups last month.

In an Internet analysis about the new Congress, they featured the beliefs of Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America in an article on the Focus website.

But when they got to the Federal Amendment, they ignored Schwartz. They wrote, "Most pro-family groups, including Focus on the Family, believe the Federal Marriage Amendment [should be enacted]."

That is not true!!

Michael Schwartz, the man they featured as a respected authority throughout their article, is one of the staunchest opponents of the proposed Federal Amendment, as is everyone else at his organization. He doesn't think it stands a chance of getting through Congress and he is working to see that it doesn't.

In addition, the other national organizations, the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, also oppose the Amendment as it is presently written.
In fact, the only national, family organization that is in favor of the measure is Focus on the Family.

There's no question that Focus has the right to endorse and promote anything they want, but not to mislead and divide.

That portion of the article which talked about the Amendment was the only part that did not quote Schwartz. It started by citing the suit here in Massachusetts which seeks to have the SJC approve homosexuals marriage. The following is how Focus on the Family reported it.
"When it comes to marriage, however, the biggest threat comes from homosexual activists, and Congress could wind up playing a huge role in the future of marriage. The reason? A Massachusetts court case.

"Recently, the Massachusetts state supreme court scheduled oral arguments in a case - Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health - during the first week of March.
"According to Matt Daniels, of the Alliance for Marriage, though the case is technically based in Massachusetts, the lawsuit has been deliberately framed with an eye toward ultimately striking down all existing state and federal laws protecting marriage as being between one man and one woman. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, all states currently recognize marriages from other states. If the Massachusetts high court rules that homosexuals can marry in that state, the reasoning goes, then a homosexual couple who obtained a marriage license in Massachusetts could conceivably travel to any other state and demand recognition of their marriage.

"'This means that we could have a court decision decisively destroying the legal status of marriage - for the first time in the history of our nation - as early as late March or early April,' Daniels said.

"Admittedly, many states have enacted Defense of Marriage legislation to avoid such a problem, but many constitutional scholars are worried they could be overturned under a federal constitutional challenge.

"Most pro-family groups, including Focus on the Family, believe the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) - which languished in Congress last session - is the only way to stop what the Massachusetts court is about to do.

"'We're hoping the U.S. Congress will heed this warning and bring the Federal Marriage Amendment up for a vote," [David] Varnam [issues analyst at Focus] said.

"The Federal Marriage Amendment is an amendment that would define in the U.S. Constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman. If approved, supporters believe it would prevent courts - state or federal - from legalizing homosexual marriage. However, even if the FMA is approved, it would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures in the country.

"'We do believe that most Americans think marriage in this country should be between one man and one woman,' Varnam said.'Once this gets out of Congress, the groundswell of support in the states would be momentous.'"

An 'Eyes Only' letter was sent by FedEx to Dr. Dobson in the fall by Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, in an attempt to understand what is happening.

"It's very disappointing to see the conservative movement being divided in this manner," says Pawlick. "We have not even been assured that Dr. Dobson ever saw our letter. Because of our high regard for him, we must wonder."

She says it is not helpful to tell the world that our SJC is going to mandate homosexual sex or tell the seven human beings on the Court that they are bad people. The fact that the Court has "scheduled arguments" is not threatening in any way. They had to schedule arguments. How else could they hear the case? But that language certainly does help in fundraising for Matt Daniels' group.

"If we pass the Protection of Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts, the state will be protected from the upcoming suit," says Pawlick. "The people of Massachusetts are going to see that this Amendment passes one way or another. The citizens are very upset, as last November's election showed."

Pawlick says that "fear language" such as is made by Matt Daniels in the article is destructive. He was quoted as saying: "This means that we could have a court decision decisively destroying the legal status of marriage - for the first time in the history of our nation - as early as late March or April." She says that this is using our state as a source to raise money across the nation.

"As Daniels finally stated," says Pawlick, "there are 36 states which have passed legislation allowing the state to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages from other states."
She also points out that the Focus spokesman says, "Once this gets out of Congress, the groundswell of support in the states would be momentous."

"But our best counsel from Washington, including Michael Schwartz, is that this Amendment will never get out of Congress the way it is worded," says Pawlick. "If the Amendment is really a good idea, why doesn't Focus work with the rest of the national movement and get an Amendment that everyone agrees on? That's what we should be doing. We at MCM will not be involved in this because we're not into national issues, but it would be nice to see those on the national level working together."

Matt Daniels was President of the Dobson affiliate, Mass. Family Institute, before leaving in 2000 to move to Washington and start his own group.