Why the Marriage Amendment is Necessary

By Christopher G. Adamo

Once again Republican “Trojan Horses” in the U.S. Senate showed their true allegiances by collaborating with liberal Democrats. In defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment, they displayed their unwillingness to uphold basic conservative principle. Thus, they not only allowed the forces of the counterculture to press forward with their assault on traditional morality, but also simultaneously squandered a golden opportunity to elevate the standing of their party in they eyes of the electorate.

Conservatives should not be fooled into accepting all the empty rhetoric about marriage being a “states' rights” issue. Despite the fact that members of both parties attempted to hide behind this shallow excuse, and even Lynne Cheney, wife of vise-president Dick Cheney, was offering “states' rights” rhetoric as her reason to oppose the amendment, this crucial decision for the future of America was, from the beginning, devoid of any element of the states' rights issue.

Since its inception, the entire battle plan of same-sex “marriage” advocates has been to systematically remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the people, since its proponents know all too well that it would never be accepted in any venue wherein the people have an actual say in the matter. In Hawaii, where the concept first gained a facade of legitimacy, it was the State Supreme Court, in a blatant episode of judicial activism, that initially asserted a “right” of same-sex couples to “marry.” But even in Hawaii, hardly a bastion of conservatism, voters quickly overruled the Court by asserting their views at the ballot box.

Throughout the entire same-sex “marriage” debate, public sentiment has been consistently opposed, while the courts have sought to exercise their authority in an effort to forcibly change human nature. In “Lawrence v. Texas,” the U.S. Supreme Court eradicated anti-sodomy laws in all fifty states, basing its decision not on any Constitutional principle or American ideal, but rather on the warped philosophies of certain “progressive” European nations.

So, “states' rights” issues having been trampled from the outset of the same-sex “marriage” debate, it is clear that those voicing “concerns” for the Constitution and state sovereignty are, in reality, seeking only to cloud the issue or hide from it. Hardly an infringement of states' rights, the Federal Marriage Amendment represented a valiant effort of the people to regain control of their nation's destiny, not only for this generation, but for all future generations.

Another scheme by liberal Republicans to flee from a Federal Marriage Amendment was their plan to leave a gaping hole in it by allowing “civil unions” among same-sex couples to be legally recognized on an equal par with traditional marriage. Clearly, such a provision would have negated the entirety of the amendment. Though the advocates of this effort contended that only by this means might they have garnered sufficient votes to achieve a majority in the Senate, their real intention was, once again, to avoid a true showdown as to which Senators were willing to uphold the values of traditional America, and which ones were not.

The purposes of bringing this issue to the political forefront at this time were twofold. First, marriage needs protection from the attacks being perpetrated against it by activist courts. Secondly, if the present Senate membership isn't going to support such a principle, those members working against it needed to be identified.

Ultimately however, this is not an issue wherein any “gray areas” exist. Therefore, those Senators who did not fight to preserve the heritage and morality of the country when it was being attacked on such a fundamental level, or who gave only tepid support for the cause in response to pressure from their constituents, should ever after be regarded as the enemies of such things.

Efforts to force the American people to accept the destruction of traditional marriage have been insidious and underhanded, and thus no single law from any state or group of states, could be sufficient to stem this evil tide. What is needed is not merely a law, but a foundation for present and future law. And such a foundation can only be provided by a constitutional amendment. The alternative is an unending series of lawsuits, resulting at best in ambiguous and inconsistent rulings, which in the long run will slowly but steadily erode and destroy traditional morality.

America will thereby be systemically coerced, through the ponderous power of a corrupt and out-of-control judiciary, to embrace the unacceptable. This is a fight that must continue.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.