This Article Explains the Federal Marriage Amendment Simply and Clearly

At last there is an article which explains the Federal Marriage Amendment simply and clearly. It says that an identical strategy in Massachusetts produced “disastrous results.”

But we haven’t given up in Massachusetts. We’re working to Remove the four judges who cheated in their frantic efforts to impose homosexual “marriage” upon us.

Federal Marriage Amendment Will Not Pass; Backers Underestimated Resolve of American People
By Andrea Lafferty
From Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services

     The federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is scheduled for a vote this month in the Senate, is part of the most important battle of the "culture war" - the battle to save marriage from being blurred to include homosexuals. But the amendment leaves much undone.

     The proponents of this legislation have made a political calculation that restrictions on civil unions must be compromised to win the necessary votes in the Congress. The current version of the amendment allows states to enact civil unions. Even with this compromise, the amendment is nowhere near the two-thirds'vote requirement for its passage in the Senate.

      And, according to media reports, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has already conceded the votes for the amendment are lacking in the House and he, therefore, will not schedule it for a vote there. [According to latest reports, he may call for a vote in November.] Yet Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) continues the march toward the pending vote.

     Some attribute this to election-year politics. Votes against the amendment could be used to embarrass and unseat liberal politicians. The fact is, the original calculation about permitting civil unions to win passage underestimated the power of the publicly expressed will of the American people.

     Civil unions wrongly evolved as a centrist alternative to the polar positions between those who favor and oppose homosexual marriage. Before any substantial communication occurred with the grass roots, the leaders decided they would not respond to the argument that included the dangers of civil unions --- gay marriages by another name.

     The amendment's proponents relied on rhetorical pablum about "every child deserves a mother and a father" and other poll-tested mantras, while ignoring the more-to-the-point arguments about civil unions and the homosexual agenda toward marriage. In their efforts to avoid arousing the homosexuals, they neglected to inform their own people that this amendment ducks on civil unions and leaves that battle to every state to fight. This has caused a "fog of war" to descend on this debate with few of the grass-roots activists across America understanding that this marriage amendment is not a final battle but an incremental one. It symbolically reasserts the traditional definition of marriage but substantially leaves it open to distortion by civil union and domestic partnerships.

      It is particularly frustrating to watch this scenario play out after an identical strategy in Massachusetts produced disastrous results. Pro-family groups relied on the same touchy/feely phrases there and avoided any discussion of civil unions. They focus-grouped every phrase. The legislation's sponsors dropped anti-civil unions language from their bill even before the first vote was cast.

     The final outcome of pro-family activists' efforts to override an illicit court decision permitting homo- sexual marriage was a constitutional amendment that simultaneously enshrined traditional marriage and civil unions. No one in Massachusetts is satisfied with the outcome. We are on the road to the same unsatisfactory conclusion in Congress.

     The federal marriage amendment offers lip-service to traditional marriage at a time when opponents are dismantling this vital institution.

Andrea Lafferty is executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, 139 C St. SE, Washington, DC 20003; www.traditionalvalues.org.