By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
February 25, 2004
President Bush’s call for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman is an indication of the speed in which our culture is disintegrating. It is downright scary. It was only eight years ago when fourteen Democrat Senators were ridiculing the Defense of Marriage Act that declared marriage was “a legal union between one man and one woman.” Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, in fact, in an attack on the bill soon after Republican Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma introduced it on May 8, 1996, called it “an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to limit the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.”
The Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV, Section I of the Constitution of the United States reads: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The debate in 1996 centered largely around two issues: (1) That the federal government had no right to define for states what marriage is and (2) That the Congress had no right under Section IV of the Constitution to pass a law that stated other states did not have to recognize same-sex marriage if it were declared legal in any other state.
Senator John Kerry, who probably will be the Democrats’ presidential nominee a mere 8 years after that debate, voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 stating, “this bill is not necessary. No State has adopted same-sex marriage” and echoed Sen. Kennedy’s argument that the bill was “an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to limit the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.”
Sheila Jackson-Lee, of Texas argued, “Never before has the federal government attempted to define either marriage or spouse. This has, and continues to be, the role of the states and they have done it well for the past 200 years.” Of course, that is wildly inaccurate. Federal Law defined polygamous marriages as a crime more than 100 years ago and to this day polygamous marriage is a crime, just like sodomy was until overturned by activist judges. Muslims, who are allowed up to four wives in the Koran, cannot legally practice that part of their religion in the United States, nor is it legal, based on federal law, for Muslims with more than one wife to immigrate into the United States.
The immediate reason Senator Nickles gave for introducing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was an Hawaii Trial Court decision that ruled, as did Massachusetts Supreme court recently, that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying was “not justified by any reason, much less a compelling one, and that these couples should therefore be allowed to marry.” The issue was in the process of going to the Hawaii Supreme Court when the people of Hawaii took the matter in their own hands and in 1998 amended their State Constitution to define marriage as it is defined in almost 100% of the world’s dictionaries – as a union between a “man and a woman.”
In 1996, however, there was an underground movement, unknown to most Americans, to have same-sex marriage declared an international “human right” via United Nations action. In fact, the Clinton Administration was the moving power behind that effort. I reported on that in a June 7, 1996 article entitled “Clinton Administration Pushes International Recognition of Same Sex Marriage.
An effort, lead by a large Gay and Lesbian Caucus present in all UN conferences involving women and family matters for years, had been determined through the 1995 Beijing Women's Conference, the ProComm meetings in New York and at the 1996 Habitat II UN Conference in Istanbul to get into the final document wording that speaks of the "many different forms" of the family, wording which would “open the door for international recognition of same sex marriage.
I had been monitoring that effort for quite some time, through my friend Susan Roylance, then president of United Families International, which is today a world leader in efforts to preserve the traditional family. I wrote,
“Richard Wilkins, a professor who is an expert in international law from the J. Ruben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, and is part of the United Families delegation warned the group in a workshop that ‘The impact of UN Conferences Declarations on international and even domestic law is binding, even when the document states that is it 'subject to local law.’ United Families had fought this battle in the ProComm meeting in New York during February of this year and left that meeting thinking the ‘traditional families’ wording was in the document. However, in the meantime, the Clinton Administration through Health and Human Services, which is headed by Donna Shalala, eliminated the wording.“At the opening of the meetings in Istanbul, again United Families called for language that supports ‘traditional families’ and the "rights of parents to give guidance and direction to children in providing health services." One member of the United Families delegation, Roberta Lawler, who is National Young Mother of the Year, was present in the meeting when Melinda Kimball, head of the US delegation, said, "We have had direction from Health and Human Services that we cannot include the word ‘traditional’ because it doesn't include single parent families." This same wording had been blocked initially at the ProComm meeting by Dan McGraw of the US Delegation, who is also at the Istanbul conference.
“Professor Wilkins said, ‘Oh, yes it does include single parent families,’ and gave Susan a written legal definition of ‘traditional families’ to read to the delegation which stated:
Traditional forms of a family are those that have persisted over long periods of time in particular cultures. They can, and do, include single parent families, matriarchies, patriarchies, and multigenerational living units involving grandparents, parents, children and other relations. Traditional family forms deserve not only the recognition of the United Nations, but the protections accorded by the Habitat II agenda, because of their unique and irreplaceable role in transmitting cultural values inculcating personal morality, and strengthening the interpersonal bonds that make civilization, itself, possible."
In what the traditional marriage proponents labeled as “the Miracle at Istanbul” approval of language that would have destroyed internationally the traditional concept of marriage was defeated, largely because Muslim and African delegates, who opposed same-sex marriage, spoke up in the nick of time in support of traditional marriage.
What I assumed in 1996, and have no reason to doubt today, was that Clinton was quietly pushing hard for same-sex marriage language in the UN documents while promising to sign the Defense of Marriage Act. That way, when DOMA passed he would get both the political benefit of “saving” traditional marriage while thinking he would be able to claim later, “Well, now that same-sex marriage has been declared a universal human right, we have to support it.” Today, because George W. Bush is in the White House, people who favor traditional marriage are speaking up for it at the UN.
It’s time to wake up, out there folks! Time is running out! If it were not for a handful of people like Richard Wilkins, Susan Roylance, Senator Nickles and others, it would already be too late. Richard Wilkins, who teaches Constitutional Law at Brigham Young University, has been consistently right and ahead of almost everyone in the nation on this issue. He testified recently that a Constitutional Amendment is was needed “to preserve the intent of Congress” in passing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sign Professor Richard Wilkins' online Petition To Defend Marriage and pass it around to friends, co-workers, family.
Also, H.J. 56 was introduced May 21, 2003 by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado 4th District calling for a Constitutional Amendment declaring "that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution, or State or Federal law from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." It has 115 co-sponsors. Write your members of Congress and urge them to become a co-sponsor of the bill.
To comment: Mary Mostert