Marriage Vote Galvanizes
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Charita M. Goshay

Was the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage a political ploy or a sincere effort to preserve traditional marriage?

Polls show that most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but they also reject a Constitutional amendment to ban it. On Wednesday, a vote in the U.S. Senate fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to begin the amendment process.

“A fewer short than what we were expecting,” said Chris Long, executive director of the Ohio Christian Coalition. “We’re pleased the vote did come up, that it wasn’t totally ignored. We appreciate the president’s support, however we would have like to have seen that earlier in his second term. But now is better than never.”

Long said he was encouraged that Sen. Michael DeWine cosponsored the amendment. In 2004, DeWine opposed Issue 1, Ohio’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, angering his base.

“He now believes it necessitates an amendment because the federal courts have begun to strike down the states’ will as defining marriage,” Long said.

More than marriage?

Long said the issue is bigger than gay marriage.

“It’s not just a same-sex argument,” he said. “When you open up the definition of marriage, it (invites) issues of polygamy, and adults having sex with minors. If we redefine the perimeters of marriage, you open up Pandora’s Box.”

“I was glad the Senate stepped aside from its pointless debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment,” said the Rev. Paul Schwitzgebel, a Canton clergyman who is openly gay.

“This proposal to deface the Constitution with an amendment intended to dehumanize and hurt gay and lesbian citizens and their families is ludicrous. Never has the Constitution been amended to demean a group of citizens and now is not the time to start.

“Equal rights are not special rights. Adult, freely-chosen, committed relationships merit equal legal rights and responsibilities.”

CONCERNED WOMEN

“We were certainly not surprised by the vote, but we’re deeply disappointed and frustrated with the U.S. Senate, who are failing to protect traditional marriage,” said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women of America, a faith-based advocacy group.

“Traditional marriage and family are the bedrock of civilization and have been since the beginning of time. Two people of the same sex cannot procreate. We know from social science studies and common sense that children do far better when they have a mother and a father. That’s the ideal.”

LaRue said opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in hatred or bigotry.

“When you recognize a relationship and sanction it in the law, you are putting it on a moral plane with marriage,” she said. “That devalues true marriage.”

“The feeling is we think the vote in the Senate points out it really was a bit of political ploy to try and get this pushed through,” said Barb Powell, spokeswoman for the United Church of Christ, which is headquartered in Cleveland.

REFLECTS REALITY

“The vote reflects exactly what’s going on the country right now. I’ve personally never met a gay couple that threatened a straight couple, or their family, or their marriage. I know of gay couples who are raising children in a very happy and healthy atmosphere. It’s about allowing all citizens of the U.S. to have equal rights to marriage, which honors the Constitution upon which this country was founded.”

The issue has roiled the United Church of Christ. Several congregations, including some in Canton, severed their ties with the denomination after it passed a resolution in 2005 supporting equal marriage rights, regardless of gender or sexual preference.

“We’re grieved any time a congregation decides it no longer wants to be with us,” Powell said. “Every single member of the United Church of Christ brings a diversity of viewpoints. It is a terrible loss any time any part of the United Church of Christ decides it wants to go a different path.

“But by the same token, we feel our calling by God to be the prophetic voice we have been historically.”

civil or social issue?

“I think it (vote) shows that people know there are more important things that the senators should be worried about. It’s not the No. 1 concern for Americans, ” said Lynne Bowman, spokeswoman for Equality Ohio, a civil rights organization that focuses on gay issues.

Bowman said gay families “can’t be legislated away.”

“You have couples who have been together, but not legally bound, 15, 20, 25 years, asking to have legal recognition,” she said. “That certainly would strengthen the tradition of marriage. We need to figure out how to strengthen all families.”

Bowman said she’s disappointed that DeWine cosponsored the amendment, but noted that his opposition to Issue 1 was based solely on its language.

NOT ‘WORTHY’?

“He has clearly, always said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman,” she said. “We’re disappointed that he is not representing all of his constituents, which includes many gays and lesbians. He does not consider them worthy of protecting.”

Though many groups opposing gay marriage are doing so on religious grounds, Bowman said the amendment is not a religious issue.

“Churches and various institutions have always had the right to define marriage as a religious institution,” she said. “They have the right to continue, we’re not disputing that. We’re addressing a civil issue here; it’s not about religion. We’re a democracy, not a theocracy.

“Folks are talking about legal issues and activist judges, but what we forget and what nobody’s talking about is, these are real people, real relationships and real families who deserve protection.”