Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Groups Hope Bush Puts Action Behind Verbal Commitment to Defend Marriage
Agape Press ^ | 2/6/04 | Fancher, Chad Groening, and Jody Brown

Posted on 02/06/2004 10:22:16 AM PST by truthandlife

The Arlington Group -- a coalition of more than 20 pro-family groups -- is welcoming the president's commitment to support a federal marriage amendment. But they plan to remain vigilant to ensure he makes good on the promise.

A list of those organizations that make up the Arlington Group reads like a "Who's Who" of pro-family groups -- Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries. Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, American Values, Traditional Values Coalition, Faith2Action, Bott Radio Network, and many more. Leaders from those organizations met with Bush Administration leaders recently -- and American Values president Gary Bauer says the result was positive.

"We received assurances from the White House during that meeting that the president is committed to passing a constitutional amendment, and will spend political capital to accomplish that goal," Bauer explains.

According to Bauer, the coalition of pro-family groups was not as docile as usual in the meeting. "It think it became apparent to the White House in the last week or so that the frustration level was really increasing among their best friends around the country," he says.

That verbal support from the White House came in the wake of this week's announcement out of Massachusetts, where the Supreme Judicial Court told state lawmakers that it would be unconstitutional to prevent homosexual couples from having access to full, equal marriage rights. Because of that ongoing power struggle in the Bay State, Bauer insists it will take more than just verbal support from the president to ensure success.

"It's not enough even for the president to say he supports a constitutional amendment," Bauer says. "We're going to expect him to twist arms and call in IOUs and do all the things they've done on economic issues and foreign policy issues and so forth over these last three years."

The American Values leader says he knows it will be a tough fight to get a constitutional amendment ratified, but he feels it is the only way to protect the biblical concept of marriage from being redefined by homosexual activists and sympathetic judges around the country.

Words Have Power President Bush has indicated he favors amendment wording found in legislation that has been put forth by Republican Congresswomen Marilyn Musgrave. That wording (below) would ban homosexual marriage, but could allow individual states to sanction civil unions.

"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."

Musgrave's amendment initiative (H.J. Res. 56) currently has the support of more than 100 bi-partisan co-sponsors as well as that of a large coalition of diverse ethnic and religious organizations. A similar bill was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate.

While the majority of those in the Arlington Group are on record as saying they will be willing to work with this wording as the measure works its way through Congress, many would prefer stronger language that would simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America -- an active participant in the Arlington Group -- says her organization has been working for months to develop amendment language that protects the central social institution of marriage. CWA's proposed Institution of Marriage Amendment (IMA) says:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the United States nor any State shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse."

Rios is calling on Congress to work for passage of the IMA and on the White House to lend its active support.

"This is the only amendment proposal that addresses both of the twin threats to marriage," Rios says. Those threats? "Capricious judicial decrees such as we have seen in Vermont and Massachusetts; and legislative vandalism, as in California and New Jersey, whereby politicians carve up the legal attributes of marriage and hand them out to special-interest groups by another name [such as] 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.'"

Dr. Don Wildmon, initiator of the Arlington Group, says he could support the wording found in the IMA.

The Effect of One Judge A pro-family leader in Massachusetts says the decision this week by his state's high court has left no room for compromise on the future of marriage -- not only in Massachusetts, but the entire nation as well. Like other pro-family leaders, Dr. Ron Crews -- president of the Massachusetts Family Institute -- was appalled by the decision, which he describes as "unconscionable."

"The fact that one judge of a state supreme court could be the deciding factor in the definition of marriage for this country is just an unconscionable thing."

The Massachusetts pro-family leader says more and more legislators believe the court is out of control. "We've had even more legislators come over to our position now to say this is a runaway court [and] it's time for the legislature to act against the [Supreme Judicial Court] to delay the implementation of their decision until such time as the people have a chance to vote on this subject," he says.

Crews says he is encouraged that legislators must now take a stand one way or the other. "This now takes away any chance for compromise, which we were concerned about," he explains. "Now the issue is squarely before our legislators: Are they going to protect and defend marriage or not? There is compromise position."

Wendy Wright Don't Look Now, But ... While the traditional American family is under attack from many sources within the U.S. itself, the next threat may come from the United Nations. Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright says the U.N. is being pressured into a decision that could have a huge impact on the family.

"The United States-based group called International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is seeking a resolution in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to recognize sexual orientation as a [human] right," she says.

This resolution effort has been tried before but it failed passage by a small margin of votes. The Human Rights Commission will have a meeting in Geneva in March and April. The resolution is expected to be debated at that gathering, where Wright expects a "big battle" over the issue.

Wright says if the resolution passes, it will be a "foot in the door" for homosexual groups to use as a basis for marriage recognition.

TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: ammendment; arlingtongroup; bush; bush43; constitution; homosexualagenda; leviticus1822; marriage; marriageamendment; profamily; protectmarriage

1 posted on 02/06/2004 10:22:17 AM PST by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Groups Hope Bush Puts Action Behind Verbal Commitment to Defend Marriage


I wonder if their hope matches their expectations.

2 posted on 02/06/2004 10:31:38 AM PST by newgeezer (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible, i.e. words mean things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
3 posted on 02/06/2004 10:52:36 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
A constitutional amendment is the wrong way. If our society has declined to the point where we must define marriage in the foundational statements of our government, we lost. Allowing this to be debated by openly homosexual states like MA, and CA will lead to a compromised amendment. Do you really want the immoral of our nation writing and voting for "the" definition of marriage?

Bush's stand is politically safe ground as this Constitutional process takes years! He won't even be around if this does get voted in by the various states. A more proactive stance in regard to states and courts legalizing this trash would carry real weight. Conservative voters could actually have confidence in W. Talk is cheap, especially when it's 10-20 years down the road.
4 posted on 02/06/2004 10:56:28 AM PST by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duk
Other constitutional amendments which were the wrong way:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials
Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
Eleventh Amendment - Suits Against States
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Fifteenth Amendment - Rights of Citizens to Vote
Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax
Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators
Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors
Nineteenth Amendment - Woman's Suffrage Rights
Twentieth Amendment - Commencement of the Terms of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure
Twenty-Third Amendment - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia
Twenty-Fourth Amendment - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Congressional Pay Limitation

Memorializing what is already the standard, is the VERY conservative think to do. The only people who call it anti-conservative are Human Rights Coalition people reading their talking points. They even ran a desperation commercial during the Rush Show.

The goal takes out the FFC issue from the federal government. It removes homosexual marriage from federal immigration law. It puts the issue where it should have been, the states INDIVIDUALLY.

There is no reason to delay when the enemy is accumulating. The time to act is now.
5 posted on 02/06/2004 11:20:11 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Once again, a court consisting of a group of unelected individuals have usurped the power and authority of the people; which in and of itself spits in the face of our fore fathers, disrespects our way of life has more or less over thrown the state government of Massachusetts. The Federal Government will be next if the Congress and the state Elective bodies DO NOT EXERCISE THIER CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED POWERS AND REEL IN THESE LAWLESS JUDGES!!!! The people are the leaders. We must demand not ask or even hope, that our representatives do their duty and put these tyrants posing as judges to step back within their roles or be subject to impeachment. Whatever happened to the good old rule of thumb "Government for the people and by the people". We as a Nation have fought for our way of life over seas. Even now we are in Iraq making a new and better way of life for the Iraqi people. What kind of example are we setting for them if we are not willing to do the same here in our own back yard.
6 posted on 02/06/2004 12:23:27 PM PST by ChevyZ28 (RID OUR COUNTRY OF TYRANTS!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Word is Bush will announce support for the Marriage Amendment on Meet the Press Sunday.
7 posted on 02/06/2004 12:49:24 PM PST by JohnnyZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ; biblewonk
Word is Bush will announce support for the Marriage Amendment on Meet the Press Sunday.

If so, I wonder if his support will be so forthright as to call for Congress to pass such an Amendment or, if it will be only a small step beyond what he said in the SOTU address (e.g. "Sure, Tim. It might be time to consider amending the Constitution. I'm disappointed with what happened in Massachusetts this week."). I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

With each passing year, the public will be less and less outraged, more and more willing to accept the concept of Sodomite marriage. An amendment will never have as good a chance as it does today. Do it now.

8 posted on 02/06/2004 1:03:28 PM PST by newgeezer (A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
As you know I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously the wrongness of sodomite marriage cannot be exagerated. The effect it will have on my marriage is nill. When it comes to actual negative influence to young people, with heads full of mush, Brittney's 24 hr marriage is more damaging as is the Friends and MTV type media culture that exists among liberal, big city, heathen heteros.

Among sodomites, not too many of them will really get married anyway and a marriage amendment will not prevent a single gay hummer. So I won't lose focus on the general conservative vs liberal political issues which are within reach of the presidency.

9 posted on 02/06/2004 1:12:51 PM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Yeah, it's no big deal. Gov't recognition of Sodomite marriage is just another logical step on our cultural journey toward Romans 1:32.
10 posted on 02/06/2004 1:27:25 PM PST by newgeezer (for further reading on this subject, see Romans 1:18-32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Yeah, it's no big deal. Gov't recognition of Sodomite marriage is just another logical step on our cultural journey toward Romans 1:32.

Is it. Ironically, I was just reading Malichi(sp) yesterday. It talks about marriage and how it is defiled and it was not because of sodomites, it was because of divorce. Sodomite marriage may well be the punishment we are receiving for the sin we have committed as a nation, just like you've heard people say that sodomy is the punishment for turning away on an individual level.

11 posted on 02/06/2004 1:31:00 PM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
I wonder if his support will be so forthright as to call for Congress to pass such an Amendment

That's what it's supposed to be. I think . . . the W.Post had the story? Not sure where I read it, but I know I'll be looking for it on Sunday!

12 posted on 02/06/2004 1:43:12 PM PST by JohnnyZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Good reminder of the amendments! But my point is the current morality of the nation. If the courts along with state legislators can't support traditional marriage, then a national amendment is a lost cause. SCOTUS shot down Texas anti-sodomy law, homosexual marriage/unions are recognized by several states. I also think I heard "W" say he was not against civil unions for homosexuals!

An amendment, if it ever gets approved for the states to vote on, will be put together by both sides of this issue. I personally do not want to partake in the construction of what marriage is with homosexuals! It would stink of compromise, blurring the truth.

Lets take this battle to the individual states. Secure the truth of marriage, and deny the moral and legal grounds for homosexual civil unions. The Fed can't even balance their own check book, they most certainly at this point in time cannot define the biblical truth of marriage.
13 posted on 02/06/2004 3:02:37 PM PST by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: duk
They have been drafed already.

There is one house version which is also in the senate. It state that marriage is only a man and woman and not state can be forced to recognize civil unions from another state.

The secon one that is only in the senate skips the civil union part.

Given the Mass. Courts all or nothing stand. There is no more Civil union open to discussion. It is just about what is marriage.

The weasel ground kerry had is gone thanks to the wacko anti-child judge.
14 posted on 02/06/2004 5:13:28 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson