Victory for Traditional Marriage in Texas -- Is Washington Listening? -- GOPUSA

Subscribe | Mobile | RSS | Contact

Breaking News -- Palin resigning as Alaska governor

Printer-Friendly Version

Victory for Traditional Marriage in Texas -- Is Washington Listening?
By Jody Brown
AgapePress
November 11, 2005

(AgapePress) -- Within hours of Texas becoming the 19th state to approve a constitutional amendment to its constitution protecting traditional marriage, a group of senators in Washington, DC, was discussing the next step toward introducing a similar amendment the U.S. Constitution.

The Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on the Constitution narrowly (5-4) approved a measure on Wednesday (Nov. 9) that allows the "Marriage Protection Amendment" to be considered by the full Judiciary Committee and then, possibly, to the full Senate. And while that possibility may be quite a ways off, the next steps toward the amendment becoming a part of the Constitution would require perhaps even more of a stretch: approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, then ratification by at least 38 of the 50 states.

Subcommittee chairman Sam Brownback of Kansas has no illusions about the immensity of the task -- or the necessity for it. "None of us [on the subcommittee] takes amending the Constitution lightly," he tells Associated Press. "[But] the plain fact is this amendment has been exhaustively studied, and it really is time to act."

The fact that 19 states have now approved constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage and defining it as the union of one man and one woman -- and that at least five other states will consider similar measures next year -- may be one reason motivating Brownback and others in Congress supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment. In fact, he believes it is only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to resolve the debate over the legalization of homosexual "marriage."

"We are deluding ourselves if we think these ongoing challenges [to traditional marriage] will not bear fruit," he says.

That is the same argument that has been put forth by pro-family leaders for several years now. Tony Perkins of Family Research Council sees the overwhelming victory in Texas (more than three-to-one) as an indication of how strongly the American public supports marriage as it has been for centuries.

"You would think the politicians in Washington would get the message," Perkins says in reference to the 18 other states where the amendments all passed in convincing fashion. "However, many of them apparently have a persistent case of cold feet and have refused to join the American people in defending marriage against homosexual activists and activist judges who are trying to redefine marriage for the nation."

The FRC president says he expects there to be lawsuits challenging the Texas results -- and that, he says, is exactly why a federal marriage amendment is necessary.

"Only a U.S. Constitutional amendment that protects marriage can ensure the hard work in the states is not in vain," he says.

A spokesman for Focus on the Family echoes Perkins' comments. Carrie Gordon Earll says the vote in Texas underscores what was already clear: "... Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

But, adds Earll, the efforts of family advocates and marriage traditionalists in 19 states could all be for naught. "[W]without federal constitutional protection, marriage continues to hang in the balance," the FOTF analyst says. "We call on Congress to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and allow the people to decide how marriage will be defined in our country."

Apparently that is precisely what Senator Brownback hopes will come to pass following yesterday's action by his Senate Judiciary subcommittee.