The federal marriage amendment recently introduced in Congress would add two small but immensely significant sentences to the U.S. Constitution: “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.”

The idea is to stop in its tracks the out-of-control train that is pulling homosexual-marriage laws into state after state following Vermont.

When voters are asked, they say No to homosexual marriage. They did so in California and many other states that have passed “defense of marriage” laws.

Nonetheless, adding an amendment to the Constitution is the hard way to go about changing the law. It needs two-thirds approval by both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. But the amendment's supporters say that in this case it's the only way to keep marriage from being redefined by the courts.

Unfortunately, the courts are the easy way to go about changing law.

Homosexual activists' lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts put a nail in the coffin of marriage when Boston's Suffolk Superior Court awarded them a victory in late May. The case will now be appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court there.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, fresh from its success in Vermont, brought the case to Boston on behalf of seven life-long homosexual couples who they say have been discriminated against by the state in their attempts to get marriage licenses.

Homosexual activists didn't pick Massachusetts at random. They love the Bay State, the place where last year the high court forced homosexuals on the organizers of St. Patrick's Day parade in a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously opposed.

Matt Daniels at the Alliance for Marriage and Family predicts that the case is very likely to result in a defeat for traditional marriage by sometime in early 2003.

That's bad news, and not just for Massachusetts. Once homosexuals have gotten marriage-style rights in one state, they'll quickly move into other states, which will be hard-pressed to oppose them in the courts (more than 80% of couples who joined legal “civil unions” have moved out of Vermont, by some estimates). The Equal Protection Clauses and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the constitution will be invoked on behalf of homosexual couples. Courts will foist these couples on state after state.

Even those states that have passed specific defense-of-marriage measures will be defenseless against the court assault, which neatly sidesteps the issue of the state's own laws. And those laws, following the Massachusetts momentum, will likely begin to change rapidly, also.

Can the homosexual marriage juggernaut be stopped? Maybe.

A vociferous laity can help. Connecticut's Catholic Conference recently confronted a behind-the-scenes legislative assault on traditional marriage in the statehouse.

Marie Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, alerted Catholics and others to the danger, and got the names and phone numbers of state legislators into as many hands as possible.

A phone assault on the statehouse began and, by the end, the bill was dead. It seems lawmakers had become squeamish about public reaction. “This was accomplished by the hundreds of faithful who made calls,” said Hilliard.

The moral: When concerned voters speak, politicians listen. Perhaps it's time to tell them what we think about the federal marriage amendment?