A proposed constitutional amendment to ban “gay” marriage passed a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on November 9 in a 5 to 4 vote. 

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) chaired the subcommittee hearing, which included debate by ranking Democrats and Republicans, including Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California).

The amendment will now move to the full Judiciary Committee for a debate and vote.

Before the hearing, Concerned Women for America (CWA) submitted a letter to the Judiciary Committee on the best language for the amendment. The language came from the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996:

In the United States “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

“We would hope that the full Judiciary Committee takes a serious look at the suggested new amendment language, which has already passed muster with Congress as the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),” said Robert Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. He helped draft DOMA in 1996.

“This version, crafted by CWA Chief Counsel Jan LaRue with input from pro-family allies like Home School Legal Defense Association founder Michael Farris, eliminates ambiguity and would put tremendous pressure on liberal lawmakers who say they believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Knight said.

Sen. Feingold mentioned Bob Knight and CWA during the hearing as key members of the debate for traditional marriage. 

While any amendment to the Constitution is rare and difficult to achieve, states around the country have been working to protect marriage on their own, with promising results.

Nineteen states have passed amendments to their state constitutions to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.  Most recently, on November 8, Texas  voted overwhelmingly to support marriage with a 76 percent vote.

The Democrats’ main objection at the hearing was that a federal definition of marriage is unnecessary because the states are already dealing with the issue effectively.  

However, a federal amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman would prevent ongoing attempts by state judges and legislatures from overturning the wishes of voters.

CWA will continue to follow this important issue as it goes before the Judiciary Committee.