| 
Photography
by Scot Facer Proctor
The Senate
vote is upon us, but the House is expected to vote on the same amendment
some time in July. You can continue to sign the Marriage Defender
Petition by clicking here
— and we will deliver these to the House when the vote takes place.
Elder Russell M. Nelson, of the Quorum
of the Twelve, joined a cadre of religious and civic leaders in
a press conference in the Capitol on Monday sponsored by the Alliance
for Marriage to support the Marriage Protection amendment.
Click to Enlarge
Dr. Matt Daniels directed the
press conference.
Earlier,
Elder Nelson, representing the Church, joined with 55 other religious
leaders to sign a letter in support of the amendment. These leaders
included rabbis, archbishops, evangelical leaders, priests of the
Greek Orthodox Church and more.
It may not have happened ever before
in American history when, religious leaders of so many different
persuasions have united across their differences to stand together
in support of a common goal. They called the move “unprecedented”
and said that with the future of marriage at stake, “We cannot stand
idly by.”
Religious leaders stand shoulder
to shoulder.
The press conference came, just as
the Senate was poised to debate and vote on the marriage amendment.
Firmly United
Elder
Nelson told reporters at the press conference, “We are firmly united
in our declaration that marriage of a man and a woman is ordained
of God. The sanctity of marriage and family constitutes the spiritual
undergirding of lasting and successful societies.
Elder Russell M. Nelson
“Together we share a duty to preserve
marriage and family as established by God. The time has now come
when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect
our divine inheritance. (For complete text of Elder Nelson’s remarks
click
here.)
The speakers, including Rev. Richard
Richardson, a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church
in Boston; Eve Nunez of Iglesia Para Las Naciones and Arizona Latino
Commission; Rabbi Nathan Diament, Director of the Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations of America, Jesse Miranda, of AMEN, the largest
Hispanic Evangelical organization in America, Professor Katherine
Spaht of Louisiana State University and more, share the conviction
that the future of marriage in America has come down to a race between
the courts and the marriage protection amendment.
Judges Striking Down Marriage
In fact, speakers at the press conference,
acknowledged that they wished they could be someplace else today
besides defending marriage—but the issue is “being forced upon the
American people by the courts who are actively redefining marriage.”
Dr. Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance
for Marriage, noted, “As we stand here today, no less than nine
states face lawsuits challenging their marriage laws. Most notably,
courts in New Jersey, New York, and Washington State are poised
to strike down marriage by the end of the year.
Dr. Matt Daniels
In fact, Washington State is now one
court order away from following the example of Massachusetts courts
by striking down state marriage laws as an alleged expression of
bigotry and hatred.
The ruling from the Washington State
Supreme Court has been anticipated by both sides for months, and
is expected to decisively accelerate the debate over the future
of marriage.
“The fallout from an adverse decision
in Washington State will be unlike anything seen in Massachusetts,
because Washington State does not require residency for a marriage
license. Thus, a Massachusetts style decision in Washington will
produce legal chaos in states all across the country.”
If the court in Washington State, votes
in favor of same-sex marriage, partners from any state could go
there to get “married,” and return to their own states and sue for
their right to have their marriage recognized.
“Furthermore, the federal courts have
already become actively involved — in keeping with the larger strategy
of activist groups to do an end run around democracy and public
opinion through both the federal and state courts.
“In April 2005, a federal judge — with
the stroke of a pen — invoked the U.S. Constitution to strike down
Nebraska’s state marriage amendment, which was democratically approved
in a referendum by over 70% of the voters.”
Amendment sponsor, Colorado Senator
Wayne Allard said, “As a legislature, I don’t think we should stand
back and give away our voice to the courts… I don’t think we should
sit back and let an unelected court made decisions that affect every
American.”
Senator Wayne Allard
The speakers acknowledged that we are
going to see our constitution and our lives amended one way or the
other — either by activist judges imposing same-sex marriage upon
us or by an amendment preserving marriage.
What Amendment Opponents Argue
Meanwhile only a few corridors away
in the Capitol, Senator Harry Reid addressed the Senate, indicating
his intention to vote no in moving the amendment forward. He said,
“I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe
in our federal system of government described to me in college as
a central whole divided among self-governing parts. Those self-governing
parts — the 50 states have already in state after state decided
this on their own. For example, in Nevada the constitution was
amended to prevent same sex marriage.”
He wrote constituents in favor of the
marriage amendment, “Before we tinker with our nation's most cherished
document, we should allow the people of each state to deal with
this issue, as Nevadans already have.”
Unfortunately the benign world Senator
Reid describes where states can define marriage as they wish without
court challenge, and there is no need for a federal amendment, does
not reflect the reality of these court cases where activist judges
are already upending marriage.
Dr. Jesse Miranda
Senator Reid also said that America
has really important matters to consider — like the high price of
gas — instead of the marriage amendment. Dr. Jesse Miranda, said,
“Among the many arguments we hear from opponents of the Marriage
Protection Amendment is that the people don’t care about this issue.
Well, these “representatives” are clearly out of touch with the
people who do care and that is the reason I am here to speak on
behalf of millions who care.”
Discrimination
At the press conference, Rabbi Yoel
Schoenfeld addressed another prevailing argument against the amendment—that
marriage itself is hateful and that defending it is an act of discrimination.
Rabbi Yoel Schoenfeld
“The Jewish community in the United
States is a community whose history makes us familiar with persecution
and discrimination. The vast majority of Jewish Americans can trace
their family history back to immigrants who fled to this land to
escape societies that did not allow us the freedom to practice our
faith and preserve the traditions that are at the core of our identity
as a people.
“As an American, I am proud to live
in a country that has historically offered freedom and equality
for people from around the world — of every race, color and creed
— who make up the beautiful mosaic of our society. This mosaic
is nowhere more in evidence than in my home — the City of New York
— where immigrant communities continue to find freedom and equality
under the law that is often denied to them in other parts of the
world.
“But now the American people — and
my own Jewish community — are suddenly being asked by a handful
of activist judges and lawyers to accept that America is really
a radically intolerant nation. We are being told that our most
fundamental social institution — reflecting the values of the vast
majority of Americans regardless of faith, culture or national origin
— is really a form or oppression and must therefore be struck down
by the courts.”
Voting on the Amendment
A majority of the Senate supports the
Marriage Protection Amendment, which is an increase from two years
ago when a similar amendment was considered and lost on a procedural
vote, however, it is widely expected that the measure will not receive
the 67 votes necessary to pass.
Senator Wayne Allard
Then why introduce the amendment?
Senator Allard said, “It’s a top issue, and I think we should have
a vote on it every year.” He said that it takes time for the public
to become educated and for momentum to grow.
If the amendment doesn’t make it this
year, we’ll see it again. Those who support it are in for the long
haul.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2006 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
