DIAZ: (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act
Someone has to say something about it. Shortly, the SenateJudiciary Committee is expected to consider a bill that seeks to undermine the will of the majority of Americans and force states to recognize same-sex “marriages,” no matter how states have voted on the issue. Although the committee vote may be delayed, the mere fact that this bill is being pushed through shows how little respect some liberal senators have for “We the people.”
Take Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, who introduced the bill in the Senate. In 2008, Californians voted decisively to preserve marriage as the union between one man and one woman in the state constitution. Yet by introducing the Respect for Marriage Act, Mrs. Feinstein seeks to force her own constituents to recognize same-sex “marriages” and any other marriage that some other state decides to sanction, whether polygamous, incestuous or whatever, in violation of their own constitution.
Whatever you think about the merits of same-sex “marriage,” I think we can all agree that a senator should not come to Washington to work against the will of the people of her own state.
Other Democratic senators co-sponsoring this legislation in spite of their constituents voting to protect marriage in their state constitution are Barbara Boxer of California, Mark Udall and Michael F. Bennet of Colorado, Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, Carl Levin of Michigan, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.
Shame on them.
The insidiously named Respect for Marriage Act seeks to undermine traditional marriage by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One of the most important provisions of DOMA prevents states from forcing their own definition of marriage on other states. Contrary to popular distortions, DOMA does not prohibit any state from sanctioning same-sex “marriages.” It only prevents those states that do from imposing their definition on states that believe same-sex “marriages” are contrary to that state’s public interest.
Remember, this high view of traditional marriage is backed up by a mountain of social science data concluding that children do best when they grow up in a married-couple household where the mother and father work together to ensure the well-being of the family.
Thirty states have defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman in their state constitutions. Every time the issue of marriage has been put up to the voters, they have chosen to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
The most comprehensive scientific national survey to date, commissioned by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by Public Opinion Strategies in May, reveals that 62 percent of Americans believe “marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” Fifty-three percent strongly agreed.
But despite what “We the people” want, liberal lawmakers will stop at nothing until they force their own values on the rest of the nation. That is why they introduced this bill and will continue to introduce it until they get it through. Perhaps they’ll hide it in a defense bill, as they did with the controversial “hate crimes” legislation. They’ll never let freedom and liberty get in the way of liberal ideology.
Americans should take note of every congressman supporting this bill, and they should let their voices be heard. Enough is enough. We need not take it.
If they want to respect something, they should respect “We the people.” How about that?
Mario Diaz is legal counsel for Concerned Women for America.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.