Federal Marriage Amendment is needed

"Only a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would establish a national standard preserving the historic institution of marriage as one-man, one-woman — perhaps in name only if current trends continue. California becoming a “gay marriage” state would certainly breathe new life into the FMA. However, another cultural/legal/political battle would follow over “civil unions,” which — far from being an acceptable compromise — are merely another tactic advancing the “gay” activists’ goal of putting government power and authority behind homosexual couples and the creation of unnatural “families.” And as the people of Massachusetts and Vermont know well, lots of bad things (e.g., more pro-homosexual indoctrination in schools, curtailment of moral freedoms) flow from state-sanctioned homosexuality.

The only way to solve the same-sex “marriage” crisis permanently is to enact a civil-unions-precluding Federal Marriage Amendment to our Constitution. Assuming that the pro-family movement lacks the guts, competence and consensus to do that (or even attempt it), the next (or parallel) battle would be over whether and how “civil unions” are recognized state-to-state — or mandated nationally. Because the “civil unions” landscape suggests the same problem of varying definitions of “unions” and “marriage,” our biggest fear is that the question will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which — in all its magnificent wisdom — would attempt to create a “one-size-fits-all” solution to the problem that likely would be about as successful in ending the cultural debate over homosexuality as Roe v. Wade was in ending the abortion debate."

Peter LaBarbera

Americans for Truth