The Federal Marriage Amendment Is Vitally Important

Politically, it is a hot potato. The U.S. Council of Mayors recently voted 46–44 to table discussion about the Federal Marriage Amendment rather than become embroiled in what many politicians consider a divisive debate.

But this week, members of the United States Senate face the issue head on. Debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 30, began in the Senate chamber July 12. Though the proposed constitutional amendment faces an uphill battle, it is vital that the amendment be adopted.

Wording of the amendment is straightforward. It reads, “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.”

Some argue the definition of marriage should be left to the states. They cite the 38 states, including Alabama, that already have adopted Defense of Marriage Acts. Six additional states may vote on Defense of Marriage Acts in November. This statute defines marriage as between a man and a woman and declares that the state will not recognize as valid any “marriage” of parties of the same sex regardless of where the “marriage” license was issued.

Unfortunately, challenges to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act are already drafted, and observers expect them to soon be filed. Opponents of traditional marriage argue that Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize legal acts of other states. They cite the “Full Faith and Credit” clause, which reads, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceeding of every other state.”

Since Massachusetts now sanctions same-sex “marriage,” one federal court decision could overturn the definition of marriage in every state. The only way to solidify the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is to adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Without the protection of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the parameters society has constructed around marriage begin to dissolve. The new norm becomes that any significant relationship deserves that status society has historically reserved for marriage.

Polygamy becomes the next step. The core of the argument for same-sex “marriage” is that people have a right to marry whomever they love and that the state has no compelling interest in whom one marries. That same reasoning could apply to polygamy.

This argument is not some kind of scare tactic. The last week of June, during the annual convention of the Unitarian Universalist Association, that group not only voted to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, many participants attended two workshops that promoted polygamy.

What is to prevent polygamy from following a similar path to sodomy? Laws against sodomy have been on the books for decades. However, enforcement waned as the act was viewed as a “victimless crime.” Sodomy became tolerated among consenting adults.

Then, the Supreme Court ruled last year in Lawrence vs. Texas that states not only have to tolerate what used to be considered criminal behavior, they have to approve it. That decision voided all laws against sodomy between consenting adults.

Now, if the parameters around marriage are dissolved, states will be required to give the legal sanction of marriage to such acts. The results would be disastrous.

Scandinavian countries have already walked this path. Instead of producing more permanent relationships and strengthening relationships, the result has been the opposite. Reports indicate the message driven home has been that marriage itself is outdated. Virtually any family form is acceptable. That has resulted in an increase in out-of-wedlock parenthood for heterosexuals who have heard society’s message that marriage is out of date.

How ironic that the role of marriage is increasingly called into question at the same time that studies validate its benefits. For example, children raised with a mother and father are less likely to drop out of school. They are more likely to have good grades. They are less likely to commit crimes or be sexually active.

Another study found that 17 percent of youth raised by heterosexual mothers considered same-sex relationships. The percentage of youth who were raised by homosexual women and considered same-sex relationships was 64 percent. The difference in response is hard to explain if homosexuality is a genetic trait as homosexual advocates argue.

If the boundaries around marriage are dissolved and same-sex “marriage” becomes legal, what impact will that have on children raised in a society that officially affirms and celebrates homosexuality? What will happen when schools are required to teach that a homosexual relationship is as valid as a marriage between a man and a woman?

Already there is a marked difference by ages in response to same-sex “marriage.” More than 60 percent of the American population opposes same-sex “marriage” according to some polls. But, 53 percent of those ages 18–29 support same-sex “marriage,” the same polls indicate.

If the Federal Marriage Amendment were decided on social issues alone, there is more than enough reason to support it. For the good of society, for the good of the family, for the good of the children, the parameters around marriage must be protected.

For the Christian, there is a greater reason. The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Matthew 19, Jesus defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. That definition is consistent with God’s creative experience where He made man and woman for each other.

God’s creative intent and Jesus’ definition of marriage are supported by prohibitions against homosexuality found in Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians. No amount of theological gymnastics can get around this consistent theme of Scripture.

Adoption of the Federal Marriage Amendment is vitally important to the future of marriage. Thankfully, Alabama’s Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions are co-sponsors of the amendment. Pray that at least 67 senators will recognize the importance of this issue and vote for the family by voting for the Federal Marriage Amendment.