News Articles

Senate report: Amendment only way to prevent same-sex ‘marriage’

WASHINGTON (BP)–A constitutional amendment likely is the only remedy to prevent courts from implementing same-sex “marriage” nationwide, a new report by the U.S. Senate’s Republican Policy Committee concludes.

The report, put together by the research department for GOP Senators and released July 29, says that a constitutional amendment, such as the bipartisan Federal Marriage Amendment, is the “only” way to “ensure the preservation of traditional marriage.”

Lawsuits demanding marriage rights for homosexuals will continue “until Congress and the States adopt a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage,” the report says.

The Republican Policy Committee prepares reports on a wide-range of issues for Senators, giving them quick, detailed references. The committee is chaired by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl.

Any day now the highest court in Massachusetts will rule on whether homosexuals can be granted civil marriage licenses within the state. Arizona, Indiana and New Jersey are entertaining similar cases in their respective lower courts.

“If marriage is redefined in the foreseeable future, it will not be because of democratic decisions, but because of a few judges who, in response to a carefully crafted activist agenda, take upon themselves the power to do so,” the report asserts.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down anti-sodomy laws gave same-sex “marriage” proponents “valuable support for their legal arguments,” the report says. While the court’s decision does not mandate same-sex “marriage,” some lawyers will argue differently, it says.

“Gay marriage advocates can be expected to argue that the Lawrence decision points towards ultimate recognition of same-sex marriage,” the report says.

The Defense of Marriage Act is not enough to prevent same-sex “marriage,” the report says. Signed into law in 1996, DOMA does two things: It states that the federal government does not recognize same-sex “marriage” and it allows other states the option of not recognizing same-sex “marriages” from another state.

The Lawrence decision, coupled with a possible pro-homosexual “marriage” ruling in a state such as Massachusetts, means that the “possibility of a court declaring federal DOMA unconstitutional and mandating same-sex marriage is more likely today than ever before,” the report says.

The issuance of marriage licenses to homosexuals in any state would cause legal chaos nationwide and lead to numerous lawsuits, the report says.

In such an instance, the report predicts, homosexual friendly lawyers would sue to strike down DOMA and have the licenses recognized in all 50 states. They would argue that DOMA violates both the Full Faith and Credit clause and Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the report says. The Full Faith and Credit clause requires states to recognize the “public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

Additionally, the report says, lawyers could argue that a federal employee involved in a same-sex “marriage” deserves health insurance and pension benefits. They would sue saying DOMA is unconstitutional as a matter of “federal Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process law,” the report says.

A constitutional amendment is the only remedy, the report says, adding that another federal law — such as a stronger Defense of Marriage Act — will not solve the problem.

“Constitutional amendments ought to be rare — employed only when no other legislative response will do the job,” the report reads. “However, no statutory solution appears to be available to address the current campaign through the courts.”

The report recognizes that social conservatives are split on the issue. While some conservatives back the Federal Marriage Amendment, others, such as Concerned Women for America, want a more strongly worded amendment that would also outlaw Vermont-type homosexual civil unions, the report says.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religions Commission supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying it is the only one that is politically feasible.

In other recent news concerning the homosexual issue:

PEACH STATE OPPOSED — Sixty-two percent of Georgia likely voters oppose the legalization of homosexual civil unions like those in Vermont, according to a Zogby poll published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Aug. 8. Thirty percent support such unions.

Additionally, 59 percent of likely voters believe relations between homosexual couples should be illegal. Thirty-one percent say they should be legal.

The poll did not tackle the question of same-sex “marriage.”

The poll of 500 likely voters in the state was conducted Aug. 4-5.

NEW MEXICO PUSH — The Baptist Convention of New Mexico’s Christian Life Committee is helping promote a petition drive that would reverse a homosexual friendly action by Governor Bill Richardson.

In April Richardson signed a measure adding the phrases “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the state’s Human Rights Act. The action protects cross-dressers — such as men wearing dresses.

The petition drive seeks to put the matter before voters in November 2004.

SPLIT POLLS — Two recent polls in Canada had opposing results on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” A poll of 1,054 Canadians by JMCK Polling showed that 52 percent of citizens are opposed to the legalization of homosexual “marriage,” one-third for it. However, a poll of 2,018 adults by Environics showed that 57 percent of Canadians are for legalization, 40 percent opposed.

The JMCK poll was done between July 16 and Aug. 2, the Environics poll between June 12 and July 6.

The Canadian government recently moved to legalize same-sex “marriage” — something that is legal in only two of the nation’s provinces.

MAYBE NOT — The move to legalize same-sex “marriage” in Canada may not be a done deal as many observers believed.

A story in the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper Aug. 8 reported that 48 MPs (members of parliament) in the Liberal party — Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s party — say they are going to vote against the government-backed law. Sixty Liberal party members are for it, 27 undecided. Twenty-nine Liberal party members refused to answer the newspaper’s survey questions and seven could not be reached.

“That Liberal opposition — combined with MPs from other parties who are against the legislation — throws into doubt whether the bill … will pass the [House of] Commons,” the story read.

When combining those numbers with MPs from other parties in Canada’s multi-party system, same-sex “marriage” opponents have 118-123 votes, supporters 115-120, the newspaper reported. If those numbers hold, the bill’s passage hinges on the undeclared and undecided Liberal MPs.

    About the Author

  • Michael Foust