Stances framed on gay
unions
As Senate debate
nears, backers of constitutional ban
say it would protect
marriage; foes say
it's discriminatory,
denies equality
By Colette M.
Jenkins, Ohio.com on the Web, May 28, 2006
Sometimes you have to take a stand
for what you believe.
That is why Bishop F. Josephus Johnson, Thomas Reke and Charles Wright are in
the fight over a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment that would define
marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
The three Akron residents are among religious leaders and social activists
across the country lining up in opposing coalitions over the proposal, which
essentially would ban gay marriage.
Representatives on both sides are trying to influence U.S. senators before
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., brings the proposed amendment to a vote
next week. Both camps are waging Web site campaigns, encouraging people to
contact their senators about the impending vote and make their views known with
the simple click of a mouse.
Last week, Johnson, who is founder and pastor of The House of the Lord in West
Akron, was in Washington, D.C., for a news conference with Frist and others who
support the amendment. Johnson has agreed to lead the Ohio Coalition of
the Alliance for Marriage, the national organization that wrote the proposal.
Johnson, whose church attracts nearly 2,000 worshippers on Sundays and whose
jurisdiction, as bishop, includes more than 20,000 affiliates, sees the
amendment as a way to protect marriage.
"The activist courts are now striking down the marriage amendments passed in
various states," he said. "In essence, with a stroke of a pen, judges who
are appointed for life -- not elected -- are wiping out the vote of the people.
We are interested in protecting marriage so that it is not redefined by a small
group of people for the entire nation."
On the other side are Reke and Wright, who have been partners for 24 years.
They view the amendment as a way of writing discrimination into the
Constitution. Both men are members of Equality Ohio, a Columbus-based
advocacy organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
"I'm all for fighting for religious freedom," said the 65-year-old Reke, "but
this is a group of people who want to force their religious beliefs on everyone
in America."
Added the 46-year-old Wright: "It's legislating hate against a group of
people, and that's just not right."
Criticism of courts
But Matt Daniels, founder of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, said the
mission of his organization is to ensure that more children in America are
raised in a home with a mother and a father.
He predicts that if the Washington Supreme Court, in a pending case, strikes
down that state's law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the
ruling will produce "legal chaos" across the nation because that state does not
require residency for a marriage license.
"The federal courts have already become actively involved in keeping with the
larger strategy of activist groups to do an end run around democracy and public
opinion through both the federal and state courts," Daniels said. In 2005,
"a federal judge invoked the U.S. Constitution to strike down Nebraska's state
marriage amendment, which was democratically approved in a referendum by over 70
percent of voters."
"Suffice it to say that the debate over marriage has been, and continues to be,
forced upon the American people by the courts. The future of marriage in
America is a race between the courts and AFM's (Alliance for Marriage) Marriage
Protection Amendment."
States' laws
At least nine states, including Washington, New Jersey and New York, face
lawsuits challenging their marriage laws.
Massachusetts is the only state that permits same-sex marriage. Several
other states, including Vermont, California and Connecticut, allow same-sex
couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships.
More than 20 states, including Ohio, have passed constitutional amendments
banning same-sex marriage and, in some cases, civil unions.
The Alliance for Marriage drafted the amendment in July 2001, and the issue
first came up for a vote in Congress in 2004. That year, the amendment
failed to gain the needed two-thirds majority in either house.
This time, supporters expect the amendment to get more than the 48 Senate votes
it received in 2004, but they acknowledge that it probably will fail to get the
needed 67.
They believe the amendment will have a better chance of passing if one of the
cases pending in a state court (in Washington state, for example) produces a
ruling that imposes same-sex marriage.
Proposal 'purely political'
Lynne Bowman, executive director of Equality Ohio, said the fact that supporters
don't expect the amendment to pass is evidence that the debate is "purely
political."
Her organization is working with the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights
Campaign to oppose the amendment. The Human Rights Campaign is the
nation's largest organization advocating equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals
and transgender people.
"This doesn't have anything to do with marriage," Bowman said of the debate.
"It's all political, and I don't think it's an issue of being Republican or
Democratic. There are politicians on both sides that support equal
marriage, and those who don't support it. It's a way for politicians to
mobilize a base of people who support extreme views, like the fundamental
evangelicals. And maybe it's a payment of debt that they agreed to in the
2004 election."
Focus on marriage
Bishop Johnson, however, stresses that he agreed to join the effort of the
Alliance for Marriage because it is not an extremist organization. "This
is a centrist movement," he said. "We are neither to the left or to the
right. People ought to be able to live the way they want, but that does
not give them the right to redefine marriage for everyone. We're not
interested in trying to keep homosexuals from being together. We're not
interested in telling them how to live. We're not interested in them
receiving benefits from companies. We are interested in protecting
marriage so that it is not redefined by a group that is less than 1 percent of
the population."
Equal treatment sought
Bowman, Wright and Reke contend that their opposition to the amendment is about
equal treatment for all American citizens.
"The way I see it is, they're trying to use the Constitution to restrict rights
rather than continue its tradition as a document that gives rights," Bowman
said." ... If we want to do a constitutional amendment to protect marriage,
let's do one that won't allow people to get a divorce."
Johnson acknowledged the need to do something to reverse the divorce rate in
America, but he said he does not believe legalizing same-sex marriage is a way
to do that.
"If marriage is redefined, the historic and cross-cultural understanding of
marriage as the union of husband and wife will be called bigotry," Johnson said.
"The law will teach our children that there is nothing special about mothers and
fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.
We will be opening the floodgates to making it discriminatory to say anything
that is in the Bible."
Colette Jenkins can be reached at 330-996-3731 or
cjenkins@thebeaconjournal.com
|
