"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
With these words President George W. Bush officially introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) on Feb. 24, 2004. An issue that had largely flown under the radar had now been brought to the forefront after reckless judicial and government behavior in California and Massachusetts. People all across America, whether black, white, Democrat or Republican, have joined together in support of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Those who support the amendment aren't trying to deprive homosexuals of any of the legal protections they currently enjoy; instead, they are trying to prevent runaway courts from creating out of thin air new "rights" that would prove detrimental to society.
The text of the amendment would read, 'Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or 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 amendment cannot prevent states from establishing civil unions, but keeps them from being usurped by the courts.
Some would prefer that the states take up the issue. At this time, only Missouri and Louisiana have passed bans on gay marriage, Louisiana doing so by a 4-1 margin. However, once again a federal judge stepped in and decided that the voters were wrong, he was right, and the issue could not even be decided directly by the electorate. Voters are able to elect their representatives but not their judges. Besides, judges are supposed to interpret law, not write it from the bench. Such unchecked power is not good for any of the branches of government.
Opponents of the amendment have turned to an emotional argument in asking, "How does someone's gay marriage threaten your heterosexual marriage?" This question misses the point: The goal of gay activists isn't the individual relationship of any two people, despite such statements. It is the revision of national policy to say that gender, especially in child-rearing, is inconsequential, even though research indicates children do best when raised by a married mother and father.
As an adopted child myself, the issue of children is what determines my position on this subject. Despite the claims of the homosexual lobby, gays are not necessarily just as ideal parents as heterosexuals. Author and researcher Brad Hayton states, "[H]omosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature."
In "Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times," M. Pollack found that "few [homosexual] relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners." Additionally, the idea of commitment, a cornerstone of any marriage, is looked at thoroughly differently in the gay community.
In "The Male Couple," David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison studied 156 male couples. Of those couples, only seven had a totally committed relationship, and they had been together less than five years. The authors then explained that couples that managed to last more than five years had incorporated some guidelines for sexual activity outside of the relationship. Children need parents who are committed and love each other, not parents that are likely to split up after only 48 months.
Heterosexual couples have a much better rate of faithfulness, with 77 percent of men and 88 percent of women remaining faithful, according to the Journal of Sex Research. While these numbers also are not perfect, they are a stark contrast to the nearly bankrupt fidelity of the other side.
"Developmental Psychology" studied the children of homosexual couples and found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became lesbians themselves, four times the base rate in the adult female population. Additionally, nine percent of adult sons of homosexual fathers became homosexuals themselves, several times higher than past population-based surveys. Violence is also more pronounced in same-sex relationships.
I agree with President Bush when he said, "In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency." However, the truth is that the Constitution is going to be altered one way or the other. Either that change will come from unelected, unaccountable judges who are intent on creating a right of homosexual couples to marry when the Constitution grants no such right; or it will come from the American people through this amendment to preserve marriage as it has served society throughout history.
Seth Johnson is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs.
