M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
Senate Hearing on Defending Marriage, Judicial Activism and Democracy
Meridian’s Inside View, Part 2
Text by Maurine Jensen
Proctor
Photos
by Scot Facer Proctor
Is a Federal Amendment Necessary?
Is a Federal Amendment necessary? “Yes,” said Maggie Gallagher, echoing the sentiments of most of those who champion marriage and family.
“Marriage is a national issue because marriage is a key social institution. Without a common, national definition of marriage, our marriage culture will be fragmented as judges and public officials impose their own definition of marriage, often against the law and the direct expressed will of the people. A federal marriage amendment is the only way to sustain a common national definition of marriage, which is worthy of its status as a fundamental of civilization.
“Same-sex activists themselves are ultimately calling for a national definition of marriage that includes gay marriage, only they seek to use the courts to create this over the will of the American people. Why won’t civil unions do? “Portability,” is the answer most often given. If you are married in Massachusetts you can’t be unmarried in South Carolina.
“A Constitutional amendment is not a national crisis,” Mrs. Gallagher continued. “Support for it is growing because Americans recognize this is the only way to take the issue off the table to settle the question of the meaning of marriage in our nation once and for all, so we can move on to other things. The alternative is to let marriage become a political football fought out in thousands of jurisdictions large and small, legal and political, for the foreseeable future.”
Pastor Daniel de Leon, who represents the largest Hispanic Evangelical organization in the country, 8,000,000 strong, said, “I live everyday in the front-lines of Urban America, where the ills of society are magnified greatly. People like myself, who provide a service to our community, are often the ones who have to ‘pick up the pieces’ when marriages and families fall. In my 30 years of counseling, I have often dealt with grown children that still harbor hurts and deep-seated frustrations because they did not have a mother and father.
“I am not here because I want to be here. There are many problems in my community, and I should be there working on them, not here far away in Washington, D.C…I need to be here, to defend the most basic institution of society for the good of all, on behalf of my community. Because without marriage, we have no hope of solving the other problems we are facing back home.”
Pastor de Leon noted, “When I turned on my television a few weeks ago and saw what was happening in San Francisco, I couldn’t believe my eyes.
“I could not understand how an elected official could ignore and violate the laws of our state, and get away with it. I also could not understand why the courts would not stop this—why they would refuse to require an elected official to comply with the law of his state and to respect the will of the people as expressed in our laws.
“It wasn’t just that officials and judges were ignoring the law. It was much worse than that. They were ignoring a law that is so fundamental to society.”
Richard W. Richardson of the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston echoed the same sentiment. He has been in the field of child welfare for 50 years and said “The recent decision of four judges of the highest court in my state, threatening traditional marriage laws around the country, gives us no choice but to engage in this debate.
“To put it simply: We firmly believe that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. The dilution of the ideal—of procreation and child-rearing within the marriage of one man and one woman—has already had a devastating effect on our community.
He noted that children are raised in a variety of family arrangements—foster parents, adoptive parents, single parents. “People are working hard and doing the best job they can to raise children. That doesn’t change the fact that there is an ideal. There is a dream that we have and should have for all children—and that is a mom and dad for every child, black or white.”
Hilary Shelton of the NAACP said that they haven’t taken a stand on same-sex marriage, but they “strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment and all other proposals that would use the Constitution to discriminate and restrict, rather than expand and protect the rights” of people.
So the battle to save traditional marriage is official and sides have been drawn. The rally cries spoken on Capitol Hill yesterday will be echoed across the land.
The cry for same-sex marriage advocates is that you cannot write discrimination into the Constitution.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said that overwhelming majorities across the nation support traditional marriage. “In light of this extraordinary consensus, it is offensive for anyone to charge supporters of traditional marriage with bigotry. Yet that is exactly what activist judges are doing today, accusing ordinary Americans of intolerance, while abolishing American traditions by judicial fiat
He said, “True, the Constitution should not be amended casually. But serious people have reluctantly recognized that an amendment may be the only way to ensure survival of traditional marriage in America. Why is an amendment necessary? Two words: activist judges.
Click here to go back to Part 1 of this article.
Click here to return to Meridian’s Home Page.
© 2004 Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.