(AgapePress) - A coalition of pro-family groups reports it has assurances that before the end of the month, President Bush will announce his support for a federal marriage amendment. That word came on the same day the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court told that state's legislators that nothing short of access to full, equal marriage rights for homosexual couples would satisfy the state constitution. Civil unions, the court said, are not good enough.

Pro-family groups across the nation reacted to Wednesday's announcement from the Massachusetts high court with calls for immediate action from the White House in support of a federal marriage amendment that would define marriage in America as between one man and one woman. Those groups see developments in the State of Massachusetts as critical in their struggle to protect traditional marriage from the homosexual juggernaut demanding recognition of homosexual "marriages." (See Earlier Article)

They also feel it is imperative that the White House make a firm commitment to support such an amendment. That support appears imminent. In a written statement released after the Massachusetts announcement, the president said: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process."

Help on the Way?
The Arlington Group is a coalition of more than 20 pro-family organizations from around the U.S. The announcement from Massachusetts came as the leaders of those groups were meeting in Washington, DC, to strategize for the passage of a marriage amendment in the Bay State and at the federal level. The group says that "in spite of thousands of years of history that say otherwise," the Supreme Judicial Court has decreed the institution of marriage is "meaningless and can be redefined by ... activist judges."

"The people of Massachusetts have not been given the power to determine how marriage will be defined in their state," the Arlington Group says in a press release. "Rather, this runaway judiciary has decided it is now a 'superlegislature' that can reinterpret the constitution and make laws in order to push the homosexual agenda."

The pro-family coalition is convinced there is but one option for the people of Massachusetts: passage of the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, due to come before the legislature on February 11.

"It is also clear that a federal marriage amendment is absolutely," the group continues. "Congress must immediately pass it so that activist judges can no longer redefine marriage."

Dr. Don Wildmon

Dr. Don Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association and initiator of the Arlington Group, indicates that President Bush may finally be ready to take a stand against homosexual marriage. The AFA founder reports that White House advisor Karl Rove told the Arlington Group that Bush will be making an announcement in support of a federal marriage amendment "before the end of the month." Rove, he says, indicated the president is waiting for the proper time and setting to make that announcement.

American Values president Gary Bauer, also a member of the Arlington Group, says George W. Bush's leadership and moral clarity is vitally important to preserve the sanctity of marriage. "With the 'bully pulpit' of the White House fully engaged, I believe our chances for success have greatly improved -- and this news could not have come at a better time," he says.

Gary Bauer

Bauer adds that it is "inconceivable" that the president would not do everything in his power to safeguard marriage. "After conversations in recent days with the appropriate people, I have absolutely no doubt the president will in fact take this step in order to ensure that marriage in the United States remains between a man and a woman," he says.

According to a Washington Post report, Bush told congressional leaders in a closed-door meeting on Saturday he has decided that when he decides to make an announcement, he will endorse amendment language that has been introduced by Colorado Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. That wording would ban homosexual marriage -- but could allow individual states to sanction civil unions.

Many in the Arlington Group favor stronger language that would simply define marriage as between one man and one woman, but appear willing to work at fine-tuning the language as it works its way through Congress.

'Orchestrated Judicial Tyranny'
Meanwhile, pro-family groups continue to voice their reaction to the announcement from the Massachusetts high court on Wednesday. Many of them are quick to point out that the four judges who ruled that only full-fledged marriage benefits for homosexuals would be acceptable are usurping the power of the legislature.

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family calls the announcement "the second act in a carefully orchestrated plan of judicial tyranny" in Massachusetts. "It is the constitutional duty of the legislature, the elected representatives of the people, and not the courts, to decide the social policy for the state," he says.

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, echoes Minnery's comments. She is convinced that a constitutional amendment defining marriage is the only way the Massachusetts legislature can protect the traditional family concept.

"This removes every excuse for [the Massachusetts lawmakers] not bringing this amendment to the floor next week [February 11]," LaRue says. "Actually I see this as a wake-up call that they haven't put their stamp of approval on these civil unions. [I hope] this is going to ... make the Massachusetts legislature realize what they're up against, and this is their only appropriate course of action."

Minnery adds these comments: "Now finally everyone in America can clearly see that marriage is under direct attack and must be protected. Congress must pass the federal marriage amendment and end this constitutional showdown between the branches of government, both federal and state."

But at least one pro-family activist believes yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts could be a good thing. That ruling puts the legislature between the proverbial rock and a political hard place. Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council says that is not necessarily a bad thing.

"In a way this is a good thing because it doesn't allow a state legislator to settle for something like civil unions, which we believe is nothing more than counterfeit marriage," she says.

Wood says the legislators in Massachusetts have no "wiggle room" on the issue. "They're going to have to come down and say 'Yes, we believe marriage is between a man and a woman -- or we don't.' That will be the vote they have to make on February 11."

As it sits right now in the Bay State, homosexual marriages are set to begin on May 17 -- the end of the six-month period given the legislature by the Judicial Supreme Court to come up with a reason why same-sex marriages were not legal.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend

Printer-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines