Mike McManus
Marriage Savers president
December 2013 – When the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, it did not declare same-sex marriage (SSM) a constitutional right. Rather, it asserted that if a state has legalized SSM, federal benefits such as Social Security could not be denied to a surviving “spouse” of a gay or lesbian marriage. Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have legalized SSM. However, 37 states limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman – 30 of which are state constitutional amendments. Gay activists have filed law suits in 19 states to overturn those laws. “The exclusion from the esteemed institution of marriage” denies gay couples and their families tangible government benefits, and it “demeans and stigmatizes” them “by sending the message that they are less worthy and valued than families headed by opposite sex couples,” says the complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation on behalf of 10 gay couples in Pennsylvania.
New Jersey Judge Mary Jacobson agreed with gay plaintiffs that the state’s civil union law puts them at an impermissible disadvantage because the federal government only recognizes legal marriages, and Gov. Christie vetoed a gay marriage bill.
Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boyce have filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is known to make quick decisions. They hope to see the case in the Supreme Court in two years.
These developments disturb those who believe marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. In previous columns I have cited three major reasons to oppose SSM:
1. Children need both parents. Grace Evans, an 11-year-old, asked Minnesota legislators, “Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?” They had no answer.
2. Gay marriage will change the culture. Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to allow their facility to be used for the wedding reception of a lesbian couple because it violated the owners’ Catholic faith. The lesbians sued and won, forcing the owners to pay a $30,000 fine.
3. Children of same-sex parents fare poorly as adults. One study found 38% of adult children of lesbians are currently on welfare vs. only 10% of those with a married mom and dad.
What’s needed is a federal marriage amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Shortly after the DOMA decision, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) introduced a bill which now has 55 co-sponsors. However, two-thirds of the House’s 435 members have to vote for a constitutional amendment – as well as two-thirds in the Senate, where no bill is proposed.
If it passed both chambers by some miracle, it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of all the states. This prospect seems almost impossible.
However, Article 5 of the Constitution allows another way to pass an amendment. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states – 34 of them – vote for a constitutional convention, that convention could pass a marriage amendment.
Since 37 states have passed constitutional amendments or laws supporting traditional marriage, it really is possible for 34 states to call for the convention.
Furthermore, when state legislatures have begun to pass an amendment, Congress pays attention. For more than a century, U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures – not the people. In the 1890s, state legislatures began to call for a convention to elect senators by the people.
The U.S. House acted quickly to pass a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote. The Senate, composed of people who might not be elected by popular vote, ignored the issue. Repeated House initiatives died in the Senate – until it passed in more and more legislatures.
Finally, the Senate relented, and the Seventeenth Amendment was approved in 1912.
My challenge to readers is simple: call your state legislators and ask them to introduce a bill calling for a constitutional convention to pass a marriage amendment that would limit marriage to a man and a woman.
It is true that if 34 states call for a convention which approves a marriage amendment (or you prod Congress to do so) – the amendment would have to be approved by three-quarters of the states, 38 of them.
That would have to include at least one of the states now backing same-sex marriage. However, by that time, the momentum may be going in the right direction.
The alternative is to see traditional marriage destroyed by SSM advocates in the courts. 
For more information:
www.marriagesavers.org
301-469-5873
