WASHINGTON—Standing before a multicultural and religiously diverse crowd, Mississippi Democrat Ronnie Shows introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment into the House May 15.

“I am convinced that our nation will need to take the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution in order to preserve the legal status of marriage and the family for future generations,” said Shows.

The proposed amendment would define marriage across the United States as only between a male and a female. It would prohibit federal or state courts from redefining marriage to include other groupings, like homosexual relationships.

“Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society,” said Matt Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, which first proposed the amendment last year.

Walter Fauntroy marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King in 1964. He supports the amendment because he believes marriage is the most effective deterrent to societal ills.

“Because of what is happening to the institution of marriage and the family in our country today, the prospects of our overcoming the teen pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse, school drop out rates, low self-esteem, divorce and poverty rates in our communities are getting dimmer every day,” he said.

Fauntroy added, “Marriage between a man and a woman, who commit themselves to one another and to the children who are the offspring of that union, is the basis for socialization of our young where we learn to care for, protect and defend one another.”

Five other congressmen joined Shows in the introduction of the amendment: Reps. Ralph Hall, D-Texas; David Phelps, D-Ill.; Chris Cannon, R-Utah; Sue Myrick, RN.C., and Jo Ann Davis, R-Va.

The proposed amendment reads:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

Feminists and homosexual activists immediately pounced on the legislation as “anti-gay.”

“At a time when not a single gay couple can marry in any state of this nation, and as our country faces much larger challenges, this is hardly the kind of sideshow anyone needs,” said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual lobby group in Washington, D.C.

Kim Gandy, head of National Organization for Women, agreed.

“I never cease to be amazed that anyone would actively oppose the marriage of any two people who want to make a legal commitment to love, honor and support each other,” Gandy said. “But proposing to amend the Constitution to specifically discriminate against the lesbian and gay community is mean-spirited.”

Catholic Support

But religious leaders from across the country came to the defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

“Love and fidelity are indispensable virtues in any human relationship,” said Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, archbishop of Philadelphia. “Marriage, however, is defined as the exclusive relationship of one man and one woman. This definition is non-negotiable aand irrevocable,” the archbishop said.

“Today, the institution of marriage is being questioned and even threatened by those who want to redefine it. It is unfortunate that even legislative bodies in some countries, including our own, are attempting to equate other styles of unions of persons with the traditional definition of marriage and family,” Cardinal Bevilacqua added.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver echoed Cardinal Bevilacqua's comments.

“I join Cardinal Bevilacqua in his support of all who are working toward including a definition of marriage in the federal constitution,” said Cardinal George. “It might seem strange that what has been taken for granted through all of recorded human history should now have to be made explicit in the federal constitution. But what has been evident for everyone through all ages can no longer be assumed as given.”

Said Archbishop Chaput, “Common sense, human experience and the wisdom of our religious heritages all support the substance of this amendment.”

Dr. Jesse Miranda said that the Federal Marriage Amendment had the strong support of Latinos. Miranda is founding president of the Alianza de Ministerios Evangèlicos Nacionales, a coalition of the largest Evangelical Hispanic churches in the United States and Puerto Rico, representing over 7.7 million Latinos.

“Courts in America are poised to erase the legal road map to marriage and the family from American law,” Miranda said. “In fact, the weakening of the legal status of marriage in America at the hands of the courts has already begun.”

Added Miranda, “We are very pleased that a bipartisan group of leaders in Congress has responded to our call to defend the right of the American people to determine for themselves—and for their children and grandchildren — the status of marriage under American law.”

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, stated: “The Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable and appropriate response to recent decisions by America's courts in an important arena of social policy. The amendment does not sanction discrimination against homosexuals. It will, however, enshrine in law the traditional and historical definition of the institution of marriage.”

Curbing the Courts

Daniels noted that the legislation would not preclude a state legislature from conferring civil unions to homosexual partners. He noted that civil unions exist today only in Vermont, but that they were imposed by the state's high court, not decided by the people's elected representatives.

“Vermont was court-mandated,” said Daniels. He also noted that 80% of civil unions granted in Vermont are to people from out-of-state. “The amendment doesn't change the status quo. It protects the legal status quo from court-mandated change.”

Amendments to the Constitution require two-thirds approval of both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states before becoming law. Only 27 amendments have survived the ratification process over the last 200 years.

Daniels predicted that the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment would evaporate if state courts would stop trying to force states to recognize homosexual unions.

“All of this is dependent on court cases. If they stop, we won't need this,” said Daniels. “But the courts will do the will of the activists. And I believe this amendment will be ratified.”

Joshua Mercer writes from Washington, D.C.