Related articles and links |  1 of 9

Marriage amendment changed
With changes to a proposed amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage, it's now more clear that state legislatures can recognize civil unions if it passes.

"This new language makes the intent of the legislation even clearer: to protect marriage in this country as the union between a man and a woman, and to reinforce the authority of state legislatures to determine benefits issues related to civil unions or domestic partnerships," Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) told reporters.

Here's the new text (with additions in red): "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said that the revision "actually brings it closer to the president's principles." But politically conservative religious and profamily groups who are members of the Arlington Group are likely to balk at the changes. As Weblog writes, there's no word from member groups like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family. Leading the charge against the change, at least for now, seems to be Concerned Women for America.

Robert Knight, director of the CWA's Culture and Family Institute, complains in a press release that the amendment "still allows for the erosion of marriage by allowing states to create civil unions. Whether you call other relationships 'Quasi Marital Schemes' or 'Civil Unions,' when they're recognized in law no differently from marriage, all you've protected is the name." Though the Arlington Group has been pushing for an amendment that would explicitly ban same-sex civil unions, Knight says even the first sentence of the revised amendment "is better standing alone. We could support that language because it would 'do no harm.'"

Knight makes a similar argument in his comments to the The New York Times as CWA chief counsel Jan LaRue makes the same case to The Washington Times.

Meanwhile, the Family Research Council seems to support the new language in an online article criticizing a rival amendment from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.). "FRC, along with 95 percent of pro-family organizations, not to mention the White House, are in support of the Allard/Musgrave amendment, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman," FRC president Tony Perkins wrote in his Washington Update. However, the update is dated yesterday, and may not be an implicit comment supporting the new language. Perkins may comment on it directly today.

Time profiles purposeful preacher
Time magazine's current issue contains a profile of Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. (CT profiled Warren in our December issue.) While it's written by Sonja Steptoe and not Time's religion writer, David Van Biema, it's well worth the read and demonstrates good reporting.

It's a sign of Warren's broad appeal in the Christian community that Time really had to stretch to find any detractors. The main critic is Dennis Costella, pastor of the Fundamental Bible Church in Los Osos, Calif. "The Purpose-Driven ministry is a marketing strategy," he complains. "We believe the Bible tells us to present the word of God without packaging it for a contemporary cultural context." Suffice it to say that Time doesn't regularly quote small-town, self-described fundamentalist preachers as experts.

next page... |  1 of 9

March (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48