Even though the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was voted down by the U.S. Senate July 14, Ray Newman maintains there is still plenty to do to protect traditional marriage.

“[The vote] let us know that we have work to do to educate citizens and even our senators on what traditional marriage is and how it’s a core building block of our society,” he says.

One new tool in that arsenal was unveiled this week with the Web site www.marriageamendmentvoteyes.com. Sponsored by the Georgia Baptist Convention, the site offers up-to-date information on news regarding support for the Georgia state amendment set to be voted upon November 2. Also included is a breakdown on the federal amendment voting; voter registration information; and downloadable posters, church bulletin inserts, and yard signs. Weekly updates will be provided on what can be done to get people out to vote on the amendment.

Newman, interim specialist with the state convention’s office of Ethics and Public Affairs with the GBC, believes that the Senate vote actually can be seen as a positive, with previously limited support among senators initially swelling until the final vote.

“I was thankful for the outcome in one way because the vote total is going up,” he explained. “I believe those numbers will continue to improve as we educate our senators about traditional marriage and how we feel about it.”

In the meantime, he says, the focus shifts to more on a local level.

“Now we have to continue to monitor the situation and are doing that by letting our missionaries around the state know where we are in the process of garnering more support. We need for people to stay informed for Georgia’s own vote on the state amendment in November,” Newman explained.

Danny Watters, chairman of the GBC Executive Committee and pastor of Beulah Baptist Church in Douglasville, sees the new Web site as a useful tool in getting more of the electorate involved in the voting process.

“It’s important to keep people as informed as possible. When that happens, they will understand that this is a vote for values. It also will educate them on how to be more involved on speaking out on these issues,” he added.

“I think sometimes the Constitution has to be amended, especially when it comes to the family. If you read history, you’ll see how the great societies began to go down when the breakdown of the family became accepted.”

 

Support fell short on the national scene

Needing 60 votes to limit debate and allow a vote on the amendment – a procedure called invoking cloture – amendment supporters on July 14 received only 48 votes. Fifty senators voted against cloture, in essence blocking a vote.

Tony Dickerson, GBC president, and pastor of Pinehurst Baptist Church in Columbus, expresseddisappointment at the voting results. “I hoped we could establish this as the rule of law as to behavior in this country.

“Given all that was said by individual senators [prior to the vote], I wasn’t very surprised by the outcome. Many of the key leaders had already stated their position.”

At the national level following the vote, amendment sponsor Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. said, “the battle has just begun. I think this is a very strong first vote. [T]his is a long process. Nobody on our side, I think, ever felt for a minute that this was going to be a one-shot deal.”

Allard said he would “sit down with colleagues” and “work toward a consensus.” But he said that because of the Senate’s tight schedule, a vote is unlikely for the rest of the year. A vote in the House of Representatives is expected to take place before the November election.

“[W]e’ll have more votes in the following years,” Allard said.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., said his office received more phone calls on the amendment in a five-day period than it has on any other issue in the same timeframe since he entered the Senate. He supports the amendment.

“The great debate is engaged,” he said. “I think we are going to have a long, extended discussion in this country [about the definition of marriage].”

 

Losing on procedure

Brownback said amendment supporters “won on substance but lost on procedure.”

Even if the amendment had made it to a vote, it likely would have fallen short of the 67 votes needed to pass. Six Republicans voted to prevent a vote on the amendment, led by four GOP senators from the New England states. Even Republican John Warner of Virginia, who voted to allow a vote, said he was uncomfortable with the second sentence of the amendment.

The second sentence, amendment supporters say, would prevent courts from legalizing Vermont-type civil unions but would allow state legislatures to do so. The sentence in dispute reads, “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Sen. Gordon Smith, R.-Ore., supported striking that sentence and passing only a one-sentence amendment that reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” Although that amendment never was considered, it likely would have received more support.

“I’m advised that it would garner perhaps as many as 10 new votes,” Sen. John Cornyn, R.-Texas, said on the floor.

 

Recognition of marriage among states

A contentious point between sides of the amendment is the role of individual states in recognizing same-sex marriage.

Opponents say it should be left up to those states, while supporters claim that if one state allows homosexual marriage, all eventually will.

The process by homosexual activists to get same-sex marriages recognized in individual states has apparently already begun. On July 20 a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts filed a federal lawsuit to have their marriage license recognized in Florida. The case was the first in the nation of its kind.

“This is major litigation,” Jay Sekulow, president of the American Center for Law and Justice, said on his radio program.

Including Florida, eight states currently are in court defending their laws against same-sex “marriage” legalization. The others are California, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington. Florida, though, is the only one where a couple with a state-recognized marriage license is suing.

That total eight does not include other states where cases have run their course. In West Virginia, homosexual activists lost in the state Supreme Court. In North Carolina, a lower court threw out a case, and the plaintiffs chose not to appeal.

 

A national backlash

“The same-sex marriage movement is vulnerable right now, because it has moved too fast in a very short period of time,” Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, told Baptist Press. “It is resulting in a gag reaction by the majority of Americans who are seeing this agenda being shoved down throats.”

Staver said that nationwide, there have been more than 30 lawsuits seeking same-sex “marriage” legalization.

The Florida lawsuit comes at a time when homosexual activist leaders have called on the national same-sex “marriage” movement to slow down. Mary Bonauto, the attorney who successfully argued the same-sex “marriage” case before the Massachusetts high court, told the San Francisco Chronicle in May she had no plans to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Quite the contrary. I don’t think we should rush into court on this,” said Bonauto, the lead attorney for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

But Staver believes that even with Bonauto’s warning homosexual activists are driving a national backlash. Politicians have not responded, Staver noted, but they will “if the people keep on responding in a vigorous way.”