WASHINGTON, March 24, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Bush has called for the crafting of an amendment to the constitution that would restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman. However, US federal lawmakers are now attempting to make the amendment more palatable to homosexual lobbyists and their supporters by inserting language that would allow legal recognition of “civil unions” in homosexual partnerships.
The proposal’s Senate sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, Colorado Republican, said, “The new language makes the intent of the legislation even clearer: to protect marriage in this country as the union between a man and a woman, and to reinforce the authority of state legislatures to determine benefits issues related to civil unions or domestic partnerships,” said .
Pro-family leaders have been emphasising recently that the practical difference between legally recognized “civil union” and homosexual “marriage” per se, is only the word itself. Either way, they say, genuine marriage is undermined and freedom of religion and conscience rights are threatened. Pressure is on from the state legislatures and courts for a supposed compromise. Massachusetts particularly is embroiled in a fight over the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. The amendment’s sponsors are also concerned about judicial activism and the risk that, without a constitutional amendment, the courts would force state legislatures to allow either marriage or legal civil unions.
Chris Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said of the changes, “Today, the far right is trying to figure out the most politically palatable way to write discrimination into the Constitution. There is no way to do so.” Concerned Women for America, one of the groups supporting a Marriage Amendment, said, “We’re still disappointed in that it expressly allows legislatures to create civil unions.” Jan LaRue, chief counsel for CWA, said that it is pointless to outlaw homosexual “marriage” while allowing similar benefits under a different title. “What have you protected other than a name?” Washington Times Coverage: https://www.washtimes.com/national/20040322-103935-7253r.htm