Opponents Of Gay Marriage Divided

Opponents Of Gay Marriage Divided

A broad array of religious groups and conservative political activists has united behind the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But the fledgling coalition is deeply divided about what, exactly, the amendment should say.

At issue are not merely the fine details of legislative wording but the amendment's very purpose: Should it ban only same-sex marriage, or also take aim at Vermont-style civil unions and California-style partnerships that some opponents say amount to marriage in all but name?

Underneath that dispute, moreover, are differing calculations about what language would appeal to the general public, and what would excite grass-roots conservatives. "It's purity versus pragmatism," said Glenn T. Stanton, a senior analyst at Focus on the Family, one of the groups leading the charge against gay marriage. "Do we go for everything that we want, or take the best we think we can get?"

Although they are early in the process of trying to win a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratifi

Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, a bipartisan coalition of religious and political leaders backing that language, said the first sentence would ban gay marriage and the second is designed to stop courts from finding a constitutional right to same-sex unions.

Some legal experts have argued that, regardless of Daniels's explanations and the congressional sponsors' intentions, the second sentence of the proposed amendment could gut civil unions by making them unenforceable in the courts. As a result, Daniels said, his alliance is working on another version that would make "minor changes in the text to make it explicit and undeniably clear that we are not seeking to invalidate legislatively created civil unions or partnership arrangements."

At an Oct. 15 session spearheaded by Charles W. Colson, the former Nixon White House staffer who now heads Prison Fellowship Ministries, key members of the Arlington Group and several evangelical Christian leaders unanimously decided to push for adding a third sentence to the proposed amendment: "Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rig

Some topics in this essay:
Marriage Divided, Alliance Marriage, Supreme Court, Brownback Kan, Jewish Muslim, Fellowship Ministries, Focus Family, Marriage United, Alliance Marriage's, civil unions, Foundation Oct, gay marriage, sentence proposed, vermont-style civil, constitutional amendment, focus family, vermont-style civil unions, sentence proposed amendment, proposed amendment, coalition religious,