By
Connor Doyle
"The institution of marriage is so central to the well-being of both children and our society that it was, until recently, difficult to imagine that marriage itself would need explicit constitutional protection. However, our country's time-honored understanding that marriage is - in its very essence - the union of male and female has come under fire in the courts. And the time has come for America to put this issue back where it belongs - in the hands of the American people."
This quote is from a July 12 speech given by Victor Mendez of Alianza Ministerial Evangelica Nacional during a press conference held by the Alliance for Marriage - a "non-partisan research and education organization dedicated to promoting marriage and addressing the epidemic of fatherless families in the United States." The reason for the press conference was to announce that the AFM would be sponsoring the "Federal Marriage Amendment," a bill that would change the constitution to ensure that nowhere in the U.S. could anything but a marriage between a woman and man be recognized.
Predictably, the bill has come under fire.
"This amendment is the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb," said Christopher Anders of the ACLU. "It will wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples."
Anders is right - it would be a nuclear bomb to the ability for gays to one day have their unions recognized in every state. However, he can take solace in the fact that this Amendment doesn't have a lesbian's chance in Jessie Helm's home of being ratified. Not only are the requirements for an amendment extremely high, but there aren't enough people in the Congress who would be willing to risk their political necks to support it. In the eyes of anyone with a modicum of political wherewithal, this is on par with the prohibition of alcohol - another spectacularly bad attempt to legislate morality through our Constitution.
There's no need to get into whether or not gay marriage is right, just like there's no point in debating abortion. If you haven't made up your mind about this yet, get the New York Times delivered to your cave. However, there is something to be said about the apparent hypocrisy present here.
The Alliance for Marriage seems like a pretty conservative group. If you don't believe me, look at their website and the things that their members said during their press conference. Last time I checked, one of the basic tenants of conservatism (at least politically) is the support of state's rights. You know, that desire to have each state decide what they want to do. Any red-blooded right-winger will tell you that the federal government should not be as powerful as it is. Yet, this proposed amendment would fly in the face of states' sovereignty.
Even more disturbing is the seemingly irrelevant nature of this amendment. So far, 35 states have outlawed gay marriage. Reportedly, more are on their way there. If this is the case, do we really need to rewrite the Constitution to make redundant the wishes of more than two-thirds of the states? Apparently, our quote-smith from the top of the column, Mr. Mendez, doesn't have enough faith in the people of America to actually put this decision in their hands, even though he says otherwise.
If the Alliance for Marriage truly wanted to support a bill that is not only consistent with their views of marriage but is also practical, then they should propose that a federal law (not an amendment) be passed that would take away the obligation for any state that has outlawed gay marriage to recognize one from another state. That way, if Arkansas decides that they don't want gay marriage in their state, they don't have to worry about their wishes being deemed irrelevant, since states are currently forced to recognize a marriage from another state.
This, of course, will never happen either. It wouldn't satisfy groups like the ACLU, who wouldn't be happy unless gays could be married in a Catholic church. Groups like the Alliance for Marriage won't be happy until they see the day when the National Guard is brought out every time two men kiss. Both sides of this argument, and almost all moral arguments, are so mired in their myopia that they're unwilling to accept compromise of any kind.
Then again, I suppose that the charm of these groups is that they're so easy to pick on.
