Showdown Over Same-Sex Marriage

By Bill Berkowitz, AlterNet. Posted July 7, 2004.

If Karl Rove, the president's chief advisor, and Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, hadn't been searching for the mother of all wedge issues to galvanize their right wing base; if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hadn't ruled that the states constitution should apply to all of the state's citizens; if Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a relatively unknown Republican congresswoman from Colorado hadn't got the ball rolling in Washington; if Texas sodomy law hadn't been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court; if newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsome hadn't opened San Francisco City Hall to thousands; and if the president hadn't endorsed it, it is unlikely the U.S. Senate would be on the brink of making history.

But all these things have happened, most during the past year, and now, sometime during the week of July 12, the Senate will be voting on a Federal Marriage Amendment, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the key event in getting the Senate to take up the issue occurred in late February, when America's war president came out of the war-room closet just long enough to endorse a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This was the imprimatur that GOP leaders and religious right organizations needed to take the gloves off: "The President was right on target when he said activist courts have left the American people no other recourse, said Tony Perkins, the president of the Washington, DC lobbying group, the Family Research Council. The American Center for Law and Justice, a right wing legal outfit founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, issued a statement saying that Bush's endorsement "serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman."

While the decision of the Massachusetts Court, and the photos circulated world-wide of thousands lining up outside City Hall in San Francisco to receive marriage licenses may have aggravated some people, that irritation didn't swell into a national call to action as many on the right had predicted. And while polls showed that most Americans opposed gay couples getting hitched, the issue didn't gain much traction, even after the president's endorsement. For most Americans, it appeared that amending the constitution was not an issue to be taken lightly.

The mounting casualties in Iraq and the so-called handover of sovereignty, and Michael Moores award-winning film, Fahrenheit 9/11, have dominated recent headlines, and most Americans still arent paying much attention to same-sex marriage. The upcoming Senate vote, however, will provide an ideal opportunity for the religious right to turn up the heat on Senators of both parties, as well as activate president Bush's right wing base.

As of this writing, sometime during the week of July 12 the Senate will vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The Senate vote is really a discussion about cloture, the process by which the Senate puts a time limit on filibuster, thereby allowing a bill to be voted on, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker recently wrote. If 60 senators vote for cloture, the Federal Marriage Amendment will go to the floor for a full vote.

While many observers believe, and a survey by the conservative weekly, Human Events, appeared to confirm, so far there aren't enough votes to pass the amendment. But the scheduling of the vote is also a way of Republican Party leaders playing gotcha with Democrats, forcing them to go on the record in time for the fall campaign.

Although the amendments language has yet to be finalized, its chief Senate sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard (R.-Col.), has proposed the following: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Religious right's plan of attack

On Sunday, June 11 a day that's being called "Protect Marriage Sunday," Christian pastors all across the country will take time out from their weekly sermons to advise parishioners to phone, fax and e-mail their two Senators, urging them to vote for the FMA, the June 28, edition of the Rev. Jerry Falwells Falwell Confidential reported.

That same day, a coalition of religious right organizations, led by the Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention, are sponsoring Battle for Marriage, a nationwide satellite television simulcast to encourage Christians and the Church to make their voice heard.

The June 11 live satellite television program is the second in a series: In May 700 churches were plugged in and more than 200,000 people were reached – helping the FRC to facilitate 40,000 emails to Capitol Hill, the organization claims on its web site.

In his online newsletter, the Rev. Jerry Falwell urged Christians to join together in a mass effort to protect traditional marriage. The Rev. said he was asking all pastors to lift up the God-ordained institution of marriage in their sermons on July 11, and to make clear the serious pitfalls which same-sex marriage, polygamy and other diverse family forms present. In addition, Sunday School teachers are encouraged to discuss marriage from a biblical perspective, and also to discuss the threat of same-sex marriage."

"I want to help rally the troops in the cause to protect traditional marriage from arrogant judges and pompous politicians who seek to circumvent the will of the people in order to enact their ambiguous views on marriage - namely by authorizing same-sex marriages," the Rev. Falwell wrote.

The Rev. Donald Wildmon, the founder and chairman of the American Family Association, is also ratcheting up the rhetoric: In a recent AFA ActionAlert, Wildmon wrote: The moral fate of our nation is in the hands of those of us – you and me – who believe that marriage is sacred, and should be between one man and one woman only. Our actions now will determine the kind of society our children and grandchildren grow up in later.

According to Wildmon the AFA has already collected 1.5 million signatures at its No Gay Marriage website and will be hauling them to Washington on July 12.

Pressuring Senators

Paul Weyrich, widely acknowledged as the Godfather of the religious right, says that there hasn't been enough pressure brought to bear on those Senators that remain uncommitted. According to Weyrich, the head of the Washington, DC-based Free Congress Foundation, too few calls, too few letters and too few faxes are coming into the offices of members of the United States Senate urging them to stand firm in defense of marriage between a man and a woman. That's why too many of the senators who should now be strong supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment are still in the 'uncommitted' column."

Human Events late-June survey found that 29 Senators had committed to voting for the amendment while 18 indicated they would vote against it. Eight Senators were undecided, and 45 Senators didn't respond to the groups phone calls. (According to CBN.com, no vote on the FMA is scheduled in the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future.)

In an Alert dated June 28, the FRC published a list of 24 Senators it deems as the highest priority to contact. The list includes Alaska: Lisa Murkowski* and Ted Stevens, Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln* and Mark Pryor, Colorado: Ben Campbell, Indiana: Evan Bayh* and Richard Lugar, Louisiana: Mary Landrieu, Nebraska: Chuck Hagel, New Hampshire: Judd Gregg* and John Sununu, Maine: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, North Dakota: Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan*, Ohio: Mike DeWine and George Voinovich*, Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter*, Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee, South Dakota: Tom Daschle* and Tim Johnson, South Carolina: Lindsey Graham, Washington: Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray* (those Senators with an asterisk by their names are up for re-election).

If the FMA doesn't pass, some version of it is likely to be included in the GOP platform. In September 2003, when Ed Gillespie, the RNC national chair, was staking out the territory around the issue he claimed that gay activists were the true bigots and were trying to foist their lifestyles on people opposed to them.

"Tolerance is no longer defined as my accepting people for who they are," Gillespie told the Washington Times. "I think when people say, 'Well, no, that's not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with and condone my choice,' that to me is religious bigotry, and I believe that is intolerant. I think they are the ones who are crossing the line here."

Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer covering right-wing groups and movements.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »