Same-sex Marriage supporters, foes continue on collision course

Even though 46 states have passed amendments or statutes defining marriage as solely a relationship between a man and a woman, Alliance for Marriage founder Matt Daniels is wary. Daniels knows the decision of only one judge could undermine the pronouncements of 20 voter-approved state amendments and 26 state legislatures protecting traditional matrimony.

It almost happened in July. The Washington State Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But an imminent breakthrough is possible in any of half a dozen other states where homosexual marriage activists have argued their cause before the highest courts. By a 4-3 vote, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 determined that same-sex couples have a fundamental, constitutional right to marry. But the law there restricts such marriages just to Bay State residents.

"The forces that are behind these lawsuits are absolutely committed to impose this on our nation through the courts," says Daniels. "They eventually will succeed in more states than Massachusetts." The national battle will become more intense. Many media, business and education forces have lined up against the amendment. Yet in every state where a ballot referendum has occurred, traditional marriage has triumphed, frequently by lopsided tallies.

"We are inevitably going to have a national standard with respect to marriage," Daniels predicts. "Marriage is too fundamental a social institution to have radically different definitions in different states." Another reason a federal constitutional amendment is necessary is the full faith and credit clause in Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution. A ruling allowing homosexual marriage in one state could invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress a decade ago. Read More