Campaign  Georgia
A  Political  Journal

The   Marriage   Amendment

Only a few years ago, churches, government, and the general public were virtually unanimous in the  conviction that the legal state of marriage consisted of one man and one woman.

Then came Aids.     The campaign for homosexual marriage is probably one of many  by-products of the AIDS epidemic.  Besides being fatal, aids is expensive.  A desire for medical and other benefits for victims and their surviving “partners” likely gave the push for legal status  its start.  Money, in other words, is almost certainly the driving force behind the campaign.  Indeed, the initial campaign was to grant partners of gays these benefits through corporate and governmental policies. “Civil Unions”, legalized partnerships just shy of “marriage”  were promoted.

Gay marriage, however, is now among the latest causes with major media and other support.  We now see ministers and  city and county officials ignoring statutes in several states  and publicly performing gay marriages from San Francisco to New York state.  Activist judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere are beginning to strike down laws prohibiting homo knot-tying.

However, most people in the country and virtually every state think marriage should be between a man and a woman, not between two guys.  This civil disobedience on the part of clergy, officials, and judges does not have majority public support.  The United States Constitution specifically  states that contracts legal and lawful in one state must be recognized as legal and lawful in the other forty-nine states: there is the very real threat that a marriage between two guys or two gals in Massachusetts will have to be  legally recognized if they move elsewhere. 

Although proponents  of gay marriage claim the proposed national amendment to ban homo unions is unnecessary, it is the most foolproof way to stop federal judges from legislating in the area.  Likewise, in the absence of national safeguards,  the best way to preserve marriage as a union of a man and a woman is by putting it in the state constitution.

Amid charges by opponents that it’s a “wedge issue” by republicans, Senators Crotts, Don Cheeks, and others introduced H.R. 595 in the current legislative session.  It has passed the state Senate, and come up in the House of Representatives.  Predictably, the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce opposes the resolution.  The arrogant elitist CEOs in Atlanta’s major corporations who hold all Georgia outside 285 with distant contempt  want Atlanta’s image to be “cutting-edge”.  Many of them already grant domestic-partner benefits, and Gay marriage is fashionable.

Representative Jeannette Jamieson proposed an alternative in the House: it would allow gay  civil-unions, but would define marriage as between a man and a woman.  It didn’t get  the 120 votes needed.  House leaders at this point have not brought the marriage amendment up again, though they likely will.

Since the House is controlled by democrats, they would be less than wise to keep S.R. 595 off the ballot.  Gay marriage may be called a wedge issue, but it’s an issue anyway.  Most Georgians think marriage should be between a man and a woman.  A lot of Georgians and Georgia businesses probably don’t like the idea of “civil unions” either.   If Georgia voters get the chance to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our constitution, they will vote “Yes” by a huge margin in November. 

Recommend this page to others, click here
Home page, click here