By Maurine Jensen Proctor

Hearing the Senate debate that ended in knocking the Marriage Protection Amendment down this round has been a little like watching a magician who tries to keep your eyes focused on his right hand, while he hides the card in his left. The opponents had a script repeated with few variations, whose lines were designed to skirt the substance of the issue, and chill debate.  Yet, redefining marriage is a serious business, whose implications nobody can entirely predict.  Surely this warrants thoughtful debate.

Americans deserve better than the scripted rebuffs they received from those who opposed the Marriage Protection amendment. 

Here is what opponents mustered as arguments against protecting marriage — the three handy, dandy, all-purpose scripts thrown at anyone who takes seriously the place of marriage in our nation. It’s worth paying attention to them, because you’ll hear them again as this debate is now transferred to the House.

Script 1 — Tar Your Opponents

Senator Ted Kennedy summed this argument up in a sentence, “A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple.”  Translated, this means no other reason could possibly exist for supporting marriage than sheer hatefulness. Of course, into this group is lumped the 55 religious leaders representing a wide variety of churches who signed a letter supporting the amendment.  As Richard Lessner wrote in the Free Republic:

One cannot help but wonder what His Eminence Sean Patrick Cardinal O’Malley of Boston thinks of Sen. Kennedy’s thunderous pontificating. Cardinal O’Malley, along with all seven other U.S. Catholic cardinals, signed a statement on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Marriage supporting the amendment and urging the Senate to pass the measure along to the states for ratification…

Among other notable bigots signing the Religious Coalition for Marriage’s pro-amendment statement are included Cardinals Egan of New York, Keeler of Baltimore, and George of Chicago; His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America; Bishop Charles E. Blake, First Assistant Presiding Bishop of the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly African-American denomination; the Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez, the Catholic bishop of San Antonio; Elder Russell M. Nelson, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, with its associated 43,000 churches comprising the largest Protestant denomination — bigots all, according to the Sage of Hyannis.

This would be laughable if it weren’t taken so seriously.  When Governor Mitt Romney said that children deserve a mother and a father, he was nailed by the press as “hateful.” 

In the Goodrich case that made same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts, the justices said that the traditional definition of marriage is “rooted in persistent prejudices” and amounts to “invidious discrimination.”

Private citizens know that stomach-churning, sweat-inducing discomfort of having to say out loud why they believe in marriage.  It is not only not cool; it is downright dangerous.

Senator Rick Santorum’s office reports that there are some campuses where he can no longer speak because of his bold support for marriage.  The vituperation and catcalls are so violent and vile, he is unable to speak. 

Yet, ironically, it is those who protect marriage who are labeled intolerant and bigoted.  In the face of this accusation, marriage supporters have become muzzled and silenced.

Dennis Prager said, “Virtually every news report about President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman describes it as "pandering" to the "far Right," the "radical Right" or, less pejoratively, "social conservatives" of the Republican Party.”  When do you ever hear the press describe anyone as the “far Left” or the “radical Left”?  This epithet is reserved for those concerned about social values.

Those who support the Marriage Protection Amendment would like to discuss its merits without their character or their intentions smeared.  It shouldn’t be dangerous to protect and defend what always had been through thousands of years of human history — marriage.

And if one is harangued now for belief in traditional marriage, what punishments could society erect for those who hung onto that belief if same-sex marriage became the law of the land?

Script #2 — It’s all about Politics.  Let’s Move on to Important Stuff

The angle the press has taken on the marriage debate has been that it’s all about the Republicans shoring up their sagging base by bringing up a hot issue that social conservatives care about.  Senator Richard Durbin said that discussing the amendment was not about the preservation of marriage, but the preservation of the dominant party.

Senator Reid’s entire speech was based on what issues were not being discussed during this day in the Senate.  “In Nevada gas prices are over $3.00 per gallon.  Fill-ups at the tank cause emptiness at the bank… Raging in Iraq is an intractable war… A world changing as we speak as a result of global warming, etc., etc., etc. In spite of the many serious problems we have just discussed — what is the United States Senate going to debate this week — a constitutional amendment on marriage that will fail by a large margin.”

Trivial stuff, we are told.  Americans aren’t interested in marriage.  Let’s get on to the really important business. This line of reasoning, of course, is meant to deflate those passionate about preserving family.

It is disingenuous, because the average vote for the state marriage amendments that have been passed is 71%.  This week a constitutional amendment on marriage passed in Alabama with 81% of the voters.

It’s hard to believe that nobody cares about this issue.

You wonder too, how an issue can be raised for political gain if nobody cares about it?  Marriage Protection opponents speak without consistency.

Script #3 — Leave it to the States

Those who want to leave marriage definition to the state may be well-meaning, but can they be well-informed?  They usually start out their argument with, “I have been married (fill in the blank) years and have (fill in the blank) children.  I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but this is a matter best left to the states.”

This is, of course, to establish legitimacy before they break the bad news that they don’t support a marriage amendment to the United States constitution. 

Some who take this position may also want to appear to be different than they are. The editors of the National Review wrote, “These are politicians, typically Democrats, who know that the public opposes same-sex marriage but that most liberals favor it. They may, secretly, agree with these liberals themselves. Their strategy has three components: Let the courts impose same-sex marriage on the populace. Claim to be opposed to it. But also oppose any action that would stop the courts from imposing it.”

With this argument, they can have it both ways.

It would be great to be able to leave marriage protection to the states; the problem is that it just won’t work. Though 20 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage, activist judges can turn over the will of the people with a stroke of the pen.  That recently happened in Georgia, where 76% of the people had supported a constitutional amendment and one judge overturned it on a technicality.

In the past two years, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland and New York have ruled against marriage laws.  We are awaiting the verdict from Washington, which has much more impact than Massachusetts since the state has no residency requirements for marriage.  Same-sex partners could come from any state to be married and return to their own state and begin legal action to be recognized there. At this moment nine states are poised to strike down marriage by the end of the year.

Marriage is not confined by a border, but is carried state to state.  Without a national solution, all the protections the states’ enact may be as flimsy as tissue.

Outcome

The debate for the present is over in the Senate, and now moves on to the House.  If we are to win this battle in the long run, however, we must continue to talk about it.  Attorneys who bring court cases to activist judges seeking to overturn marriage cannot win this battle.  The people must win.

Senators who voted against the amendment don’t believe they will feel it on election day.  They need to feel it.

Through Meridian, Family Leader Network delivered 23,000 signatures on petitions to the Senate.  Readers have asked if it makes a difference.  It does.  In the days since then we’ve heard more than one Senator say that it is the calls and letters that helped to shore them up.

So what lies ahead?  A time for people who support marriage to talk about it with courage and fluency.  If not, what lies ahead?

Governor Mitt Romney wrote a letter to senators asking them to support the amendment. He said:

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment.  For instance, our birth certificates is being challenged:  same sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage.  Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class.  In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess.  The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories.  In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” 

Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

Call and Thank

Below is a list of senators who supported the Marriage Protection amendment.  They need to hear from you.  A thanks makes so much difference.  It helps give them the fortitude to stick this out for another day.  Click here http://capwiz.com/familyleadernetwork/dbq/officials/ to find the phone number or email of your senator.  Those who supported the amendment are listed below.

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.

Maurine Jensen Proctor is the Editor-in-Chief of Meridian Magazine.

Family Leader Network Archive