More Debate on Government Involvement in Marriage

Opponents say marriage amendment is a waste of time; supporters say American people demand it

June 6, 2006

Debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) continued today, as it winds its way to an expected vote on Wednesday.

As reported by Focus on the Family Action, supporters of the amendment led by Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., laid out several different nuts-and-bolts arguments as to why we need the MPA.

"The senators spoke on the effects on children from living in homes without a mom or a dad — and why the courts have made this issue absolutely vital," Banks said. But opponents — namely Democrats like Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. — seemed to be reading from the same set of talking points, Banks said.

"Why are we doing this?" Reid again asked his colleagues today, complaining that the Senate should be considering other issues. "There's no chance that this is going to pass." Kennedy, meanwhile, accused the amendment's supporters of wanting to "write bigotry into the U.S. Constitution." He argued that his home state had every right to approve of same-sex marriage — and was no "threat" to anyone.

"I'm proud that Massachusetts continues to be a leader on marriage equality," Kennedy said. "Being part of a family is a basic right, and I look forward to the day when every state accepts this basic principle of fairness."

But that assessment is challenged by none other than the governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, who sent a letter to Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to support the MPA. Allard cited the letter in today's debate.

"Americans are tolerant, generous and kind people," Romney wrote. "We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage. Romney wrote that homosexual marriage was hampering his state.

"Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights," he wrote. "In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who served for several years as chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said he's tired of hearing Democrats — and a handful of Republicans — charge there's no crisis to warrant a constitutional amendment.

"Judges are good at deciding cases," he said. "They are good at applying law. But when it comes to moral reasoning, there is nothing in their legal training or in our laws that gives a few activist judges the right to make wholesale social change at the expense of the traditions of the American people."

Freshman Sen. David Vitter, R-La., meanwhile, told his colleagues who oppose the amendment that they "didn't get it" when it came to the marriage issue.

"But I can tell you that real people do," Vitter said. "The people of Louisiana get it. They passed a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage... folks don't want marriage redefined."
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., leveled his own broadside aimed at those who argue that this is not an issue that the American people care about.

"I beg to differ," Thune said. "Nineteen different states in this country have adopted constitutional amendments by public vote defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That very initiative, that very vote, will be on the ballot this fall in South Dakota. In fact, I predict we will get a very comfortable margin in favor of that . . .

"The American people have a different way of deciding what they care about and what's important than do sometimes the politicians here in Washington."

The Senate is expect to vote Wednesday on cloture — a procedural move to bring the amendment up for an up-or-down vote. Banks said no one will be surprised if the effort ends with that procedural vote. Constitutional amendments, she said, historically have taken many years to pass.

"The Founders set the threshold high for passage of an amendment — a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. This should not be a surprise to anyone," she said. "But the rhetoric about this being 'meaningless' because it's unlikely to pass is really a hollow argument."

Indeed, Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America, considers the vote an exercise in education. He's on Capitol Hill taking the case for marriage to as many senators as he can.

"We got 48 votes last time," Cass said. "We expect the five new senators who campaigned on marriage to vote the right way, so we should pick up some votes, but we can't really predict the outcome, yet."

Cass also called on constituents to continue to fax, telephone and e-mail their senators, asking them to support the amendment. No matter what, he said, we're in this for the long run.

"This isn't about one election cycle. It isn't about any particular senator," he said. "It's about the institution of marriage, and we need to get people who understand that in places of power."