On February 24, 2004, President George W. Bush issued a clarion call to the nation. Speaking from the Roosevelt Room of the White House, the president stated, "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."

Calling marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president stated that "the voice of the people must be heard." Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, expected to be the president’s Democratic opponent in November, has stated that he would vote against a marriage amendment.

The effort to create a federal marriage amendment has been gathering steam since Colorado Republicans Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Sen. Wayne Allard, joined by a broad coalition of Democratic and Republican leaders, introduced bills HJ RES 56 and SJ RES 26 in 2003, calling for such an amendment. The proposed amendment would state, "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, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The Alliance for Marriage, a northern Virginia educational organization founded by Matt Daniels, crafted the proposed amendment with the assistance of Judge Robert Bork and other constitutional scholars. The amendment must be supported by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths (or 38) of the states for it to become part of the U.S. Constitution. The bills now in front of the 108th Congress have until this November’s presidential election, when Congress adjourns, to be voted on and become law. Currently, over 100 members of Congress are listed as cosponsors of HJ RES 56. The environment in the states is ripe for a federal marriage amendment. Thirty-four states already have a "Defense of Marriage" law in place, and four states have added a marriage amendment to their constitutions.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which President Clinton signed. Senator Kerry and thirteen other senators voted against the act. The federal marriage amendment has been introduced because of fears that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and woman, may be challenged by a liberal court system. A constitutional amendment is seen as the only sure way to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

The issue was brought into sharp focus on November 18, 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the Massachusetts ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The actions of the liberal court engendered a strong public response. A coalition of over 3,000 Massachusetts religious organizations issued a statement on February 7, asking the state legislature to pass a state-level constitutional amendment to counter the Goodridge ruling.

Recent national polls have shown that most Americans are opposed to gay and lesbian marriage. A November 2003 poll from the Pew Research Center stated that 59 percent of Americans were opposed to gay marriage, with opposition rising to 80 percent among evangelical Protestants. The Episcopal Church, widely thought of as liberal in its attitudes toward gays and lesbians, has been in turmoil since it consecrated a gay priest, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire in November 2003. In January, in opposition to the election of Bishop Robinson, delegates from 12 of the 107 Episcopal dioceses formed a new organization called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. It remains to be seen whether the Episcopal Church will split over the issue.

With most of the major religions and historical American customs standing in clear opposition to gay marriage, how is it that traditional marriage is suddenly in such jeopardy?

Stephen Bennett, a Christian speaker who was an active homosexual until the age of 28, having had relationships with over 100 men, believes that the current marriage crisis is the result of a well-planned campaign by gay and lesbian activists during the last fifteen years. Now married, with a little boy and girl, he spreads his message nationally that "no one is born that way ... it has everything to do with childhood and complete change is completely possible."

Bennett is joined in his opinion that homosexuality can be reversed by a slew of nonprofit organizations, many of them founded and staffed by former gays and lesbians. P.A.T.H. (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality) is a "nonprofit coalition of organizations that help people with unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) realize their personal goals for change--whether by developing their innate heterosexual potential or by embracing a lifestyle as a single, nonsexually active man or woman." One of the organizations listed on the P.A.T.H. Web site is the International Healing Foundation, established by psychotherapist Richard Cohen in 1990. Cohen is the author of Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality, a guide for individuals wishing to make a transition from the homosexual lifestyle.

To clarify the genesis of the current marriage crisis, Bennett and Cohen both point to a manual of homosexual and lesbian strategy, written in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and published by Doubleday/Bantam. The book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, is a sophisticated marketing strategy of manipulation that uses terms such as "desensitize," "jam," and "convert."

The authors state, "by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends--using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard--whether they like it or not."

Americans wondering why so many television shows and films in recent years have more and more incidents of gay and lesbian individuals and couples need look no further than the book’s recommendation: "to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet."

PBS aired a NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on November 19, 2003, called "Gays on TV." The reporter, Terence Smith, stated, "Just a few years ago, the subject was nearly taboo. This season there are some 20 series, dramas or reality shows, that feature gay and lesbian life."

Smith interviewed Suzanna Walters, the author of All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America. Walters said, "The options for lesbians and gays ten, fifteen years ago were either complete invisibility or awful, heinous, you know, vicious stereotypes. There’s been this sea change in our culture, where gays and lesbians have entered into the popular imagination in mainstream television, network and cable television, films, advertising."

Bennett is ominous in his conclusion: "Television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet--the media are the means. Kirk and Madsen have succeeded."

Cohen offers even less comfort, stating, "Welcome to my world. Read it and weep."

Most Americans are busy and hardworking, with little time to research the machinations of homosexual and lesbian activists. One conclusion that ordinary citizens can draw is that as a nation, we’ve been "snookered." The dictionary definition of snooker is "to fool; dupe," as in "snookered by a lot of malarkey." The manipulation that Kirk and Madsen write about is being piped into American homes, via television and films, at an ever-increasing rate. With a high percentage of the Hollywood film industry dominated by gays and lesbians, the stream of pro-gay material is not likely to cease anytime soon.

Americans, who love and honor fair play and individual freedom, have taken a tolerant view of the private relationships among homosexuals and lesbians. Gay activists have championed gay marriage as a private affair that is part of an individual’s civil rights. It is a rare American who won’t defend civil rights.

Lost in the verbiage are the long-range consequences if gay marriage becomes legal in all fifty states. MarriageWatch, a service of the Marriage Law Project, has published a "Talking Points" Web page about the Defense of Marriage Act. Its overview of the impact of legalized gay marriage on American society is chilling. The most immediate victims of gay marriage will be children. MarriageWatch points out that since gay and lesbian couples cannot have children, they will have to utilize the services of a third person to provide the missing egg or sperm. This will force the children into the position of either never knowing their real but missing father or mother, or relating to the odd parent out as a "third parent."

Nationally legalized gay marriage will create a firestorm of public school curriculum modifications. Schools will be forced by gay activist lawsuits to present homosexual and lesbian marriage as normal. Private schools may not be exempt. Future generations of schoolchildren, from kindergarten on up, will be forced to recognize Mr. and Mr. Jones as a validly married couple. In their drive to "reduce teen pregnancies," liberal sex-education "experts" from the school of Alfred Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy will encourage students to engage in homosexual and lesbian sex as a viable way to avoid pregnancy--the ultimate in "safe sex."

Gay activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign Foundation are already pushing for the addition of gay and lesbian curricula to the public schools, from "children's first years in school." Bennett believes that the "homosexual’s main goal is to wipe out ‘homophobia’ in one generation--by getting the children now."

A commonsense approach to marriage is needed to counter the clever marketing of the gay and lesbian lobbies. In a USA Today commentary on February 23, 2004, Dick Richardson, director of political affairs for the Black Ministerial Alliance of Boston, stated it simply: "We have always found that every child has an innate need to connect with a mother and a father. Children instinctively seek a connection to both halves of the human race."

America has survived and been victorious through many crises, including that of the Civil War and the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We owe it to our ancestors and future generations to win the battle of marriage and the family. n

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home