FPN-TN leader wants current marriage proposals to be withdrawn or fail
CLICK HERE to urge lawmakers to STRENGTHEN the Tennessee Marriage Amendment
Lawmakers are nearly two full years into a three-year process to amend the Tennessee State Constitution to protect marriage from redefinition by liberals and homosexual activists. Unfortunately, conservative analysts are now concerned that the effort may actually do more harm than good.
FPN State Director Ron Shank wrote to more than a thousand FPN supporters throughout Tennessee on Friday, explaining the reasons why he wants them to pray for the current marriage amendment proposals in Nashville to be withdrawn or fail. Here is the text of that letter:
Dear Friend:
I have some bad news.
The marriage amendment proposals that Tennessee’s House of Representatives will consider this Tuesday, March 15 are so problematic that FPN would prefer they be withdrawn or rejected so language that will actually accomplish something may be introduced next year.
This email contains an FPN Policy Paper outlining the reasons that that the CURRENT marriage amendment proposals are bad. Unfortunately, homosexual activists and liberal politicians have dramatically changed their tactics aimed at creating “homosexual families” in the last few years.
[FPN maintains any state marriage amendment must also contain a ban on civil unions and all other marriage counterfeits, too.]
Therefore, despite all of the great intentions and truly Godly people behind the push for a Tennessee marriage amendment, passage this year would actually be detrimental to the long-term efforts of conservatives to protect the institution of the family in the Volunteer State.
To summarize, the problem with the language currently proposed is that the bills would only define the word “marriage.” Homosexual activists are now primarily attempting to gain all of the benefits of marriage through “parallel legal institutions” with different names (like “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships”). Therefore, merely defining the term “marriage” is no longer an effective way to defend the family against attempts to redefine it. The Policy Paper below gives a broader explanation of the problems associated with only defining marriage in a state constitutional amendment.
Please pray for this year’s marriage amendment proposals to be withdrawn, or to fail when they are voted on in the House of Representatives this Tuesday, March 15. Pray simultaneously for our friends who are still promoting this language, that God will provide “a way out” that enables them to somehow gain ground in their quest to protect Tennessee families.
This is an awkward situation for everyone involved, especially since homosexual activists will be jubilant over the failure of an amendment to pass, regardless of the reason. As Christians, we know the temporary shame associated with the perception that Christ had been defeated at the cross was worth the ultimate victory to defeat Hell and the grave.
May God bless you as you continue to live for Him.
Ron Shank, State Director
Family Policy Network
The message to FPN’s supporters in Tennessee included the FPN Policy Paper on State Marriage Amendments, which has been added here, too:
FPN Policy Paper on State Marriage Amendments
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court created a Constitutional “right” to homosexual sodomy in the landmark case known as Lawrence v. Texas. That same year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took the unprecedented step of requiring its legislature to create so-called “gay marriages,” thereby triggering fears that the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution would be used to require all states to recognize homosexual “unions” from Massachusetts.
Since that time, pro-family lawmakers and citizens have amended fifteen state constitutions in order to preserve the centuries-old definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Nine of those fifteen states adopted amendments that not only define the term “marriage,” but that additionally ban all other counterfeits to marriage, too.
The new objective: Gaining “legal incidents” vs. “the m-word”
Just as water takes the path of least resistance as it flows downhill, liberal activists who want to redefine the family are constantly changing their tactics in order to accomplish their objectives. That’s why it’s important for pro-family groups on the state level to learn from the fortunes and missteps of those who have forged ahead.
Perhaps no more important lesson can be learned from the efforts thus far, than the willingness of homosexuals to change their goals and methods when necessary, in order to obtain their ultimate objectives incrementally. As an example, homosexual activists have begun to accept the fact that public opinion and political momentum have clearly shifted against “gay” marriage. Therefore, while liberals continue to publicly demand “equality” for homosexuals who want the rewards of marriage, they are simultaneously working behind the scenes to gain the benefits of marriage without immediately demanding they be able to use the word.
Here’s a description of this shrewd change in tactics, as homosexual activist and columnist John Corvino articulated it recently:
(1) Properly crafted civil-unions legislation could grant ALL of the legal incidents of marriage (albeit under a different name). I am not talking about “watered-down” civil unions here; I’m talking about the full legal enchilada.
(2) The difference between such unions and marriage, since it is not a difference in legal incidents, appears to be a difference in level of social endorsement carried by the “m-word.”
(3) Our best strategy (in most states) for securing the tremendously important legal incidents is to fight for them under the name “civil unions.”
(4) Our best strategy for securing the social endorsement (i.e., marriage under the name “marriage”) is first to secure the legal incidents. Then people will look at our civil unions, realize that they are virtually indistinguishable from marriages, start calling them marriages, and gradually forget why they objected to doing so before. That’s what happened in Scandinavia, and it’s happening elsewhere in Europe.
(5) Attempts to force the social endorsement too quickly (by demanding the name “marriage” above and beyond the legal incidents) may backfire, resulting in state constitutional bans not only on gay marriage but also on civil unions. The upshot would be to delay BOTH the legal incidents and the social endorsement.
As pro-family advocates work to amend constitutions in their respective states, it is critical that they seek the advice of a variety of litigating marriage-law attorneys on the national level – as well as the leaders of successful marriage amendment battles in other states. This way, they can avail themselves of the “lessons learned” in other places; both legal and political. They must draw on a broader base of knowledge than just the conventional legal wisdom from within one state’s borders, or even from one or two outside organizations.
Family Policy Network’s research on state marriage amendments has involved the input of ten different pro-family attorneys in a total of five states, and nearly as many expert policy analysts in that many organizations – who have all been working almost exclusively on the issue of marriage in their respective positions within state and national pro-family organizations.
Almost unanimously, these experts warn against falling prey to weak marriage amendment language versions that only protect the legal definition of the word, “marriage.” Doing so not only fails to accomplish the overall marriage amendment objective, but it depletes the political will to adopt real language that will do the job.
“Something” vs. “Nothing”
In some state legislatures, weak marriage amendments have been proposed because of the “political realities” that prevent a serious defense of marriage, rather than just the word. The intent of conservatives who support such proposals is to achieve “something” rather than “nothing.” Here are some brief comparisons of the stated benefits vs. drawbacks of such proposals:
Stated benefit: Proponents say, “Well, at least ‘marriage’ will be safe from attack, even though we will still be vulnerable to ‘civil unions’ and ‘domestic partnerships.’
Problem: Rewarding non-marital relationships is harmful, regardless of the name the arrangements are given. In these instances, society is rewarding unmarried couples the same way it formerly rewarded married couples. Hence, the preeminent place formerly reserved for marriage in society is open to any kind of arrangement.
Stated benefit: Proponents say, “The political fight over the term “marriage” will help us elect more conservative politicians and defeat some liberal politicians.”
Problem: Political research shows liberal politicians routinely embrace weak marriage amendments. As an example, Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry was quoted as saying:
“While I do not support gay marriage, I support civil unions and I believe that gays and lesbians should have full rights and equality under the law.”
Weak marriage amendment proposals give moderate to liberal politicians a chance to boost their political support among otherwise conservative voters. Therefore, weak marriage amendment proposals are politically detrimental to conservative politicians.
Stated benefit: Proponents say, “Weak language isn’t bad. It just isn’t perfect. Therefore a proposal that defines marriage, even though it leaves the door open to civil unions, is still worthy of support.”
Problem: When the legal incidents of marriage are available for “civil unions” and “domestic partners,” the same harm is done as when they are available in the name of marriage. Liberal politicians are patient, and will fight for their objectives incrementally. John Kerry told homosexual activists to work toward incremental gains while he was running for President in 2004. According to a popular homosexual website, Kerry said:
“It may well be that if we achieve civil unions … then we may — all of us — progress … to a place where there is a different understanding [on marriage]. But I think that one has to respect the current cultural-historical-religious perception [against same-sex marriage], and I respect it.”
Stated benefit: Proponents say, “This is just a first step. We will ban civil unions and domestic partnerships later.”
Problem: Marriage amendments are supported in large numbers by people who don’t agree with all of the details. In fact, states wherein voters appeared to be ambivalent about civil unions and domestic partnerships (albeit only for a lack of information) have passed marriage amendments that effectively banned those arrangements, too. (Michigan and Ohio even passed comprehensive language by garnering more support than President Bush on election day.) Once a marriage amendment is passed, the broader base of support needed to pass another amendment is gone.
CONCLUSION:
State marriage amendments that merely define the term “marriage” without banning counterfeits should be opposed. Wherever proposed, citizens and lawmakers should work to defeat any such proposal, since its passage would merely quench the thirst of citizens to protect the family, without providing any substantive benefit. Once weak language is defeated, comprehensive language can be proposed.
State Marriage Amendments:
Alaska: (WEAK) “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.” Alaska Const., Art. I, sec. 25 (1998)
Arkansas: (STRONG) “Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.” Arkansas Const., *** (2004)
Georgia: (STRONG) “(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.” Georgia Const., Art I, sec. 4 par. 1 (2004)
Hawaii: (WEAK) “The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Haw. Const., Art. I, sec. 23 (1998)
Kentucky: (STRONG) “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” Kentucky Const., Sec. 233A (2004)
Louisiana: (STRONG) “Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.” Louisiana Const., Art. XII, sec. 15 (2004)
Michigan: (STRONG) “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Michigan Const., *** (2004)
Mississippi: (WEAK) “Marriage may take place and be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.” Mississippi Const., Sec. 263-A (2004)
Missouri: (WEAK) “That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.” Missouri Const., Art. I, sec. 33 (2004)
Montana: (WEAK) “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Montana Const., Art. *** (2004)
Nebraska: (STRONG) “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.” Neb. Const., Art. I, sec. 29 (1999)
Nevada: (WEAK) “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nevada.” Nevada Const., Art. I, sec. 21 (2001)
North Dakota: (STRONG) “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” North Dakota Const., Art. XI, sec. 28 (2004)
Ohio: (STRONG) “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” Ohio Const., Art. XV, sec. 11 (2004)
Oklahoma: (STRONG) “A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Oklahoma Const., Art. 2, sec. 35 (2004)
Oregon: (WEAK) “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” Oregon Const., Art. *** (2004)
Utah: (STRONG) “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” Utah Const., Art. I, sec. 29 (2004)
Pending Amendments:
Tennessee: (WEAK) “The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.”
Virginia: (STRONG) “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. “
Wisconsin: (STRONG) “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”