United Methodists at odds over marriage amendment
July 13, 2004 *By Shanta Bryant Gyan WASHINGTON
(UMNS) -- While a U. S. Senate vote on a proposed constitutional
amendment defining marriage only as “the union of a man and a woman”
appears unlikely, United Methodist leaders disagree on the merits of the
proposal. The
Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment
sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), asserts: “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, shall be
construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” An
alternative amendment, stating only the first sentence of Allard’s
proposed amendment, was expected to be proposed on the Senate floor. However,
according to news reports, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)
and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) were not able to agree on
whether to allow a vote on both measures. A
two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate is
required for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be sent to
the states for ratification. Thirty-eight states must approve it before
a proposed amendment becomes law. We
support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one
man and one woman.” The General Conference did not adopt a position on
the proposed amendment. James
Winkler, staff executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and
Society, said the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage
“is more to make a political statement. I don’t think we need for it to
rise to the level of a constitutional amendment.” The
Association for Church Renewal, a coalition of 30 church organizations,
on July 12 presented 2,500 signatures in support of the Federal
Marriage Amendment to congressional leaders and White House officials.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, a watchdog group for mainline
church denominations with a United Methodist committee, UMAction, is a
member of ACR. The
petition said marriage “has come under increasing attack from those who
would remake marriage into the image of shifting cultural trends rather
than affirm the unchanging design given to us at creation – a design
recognized across cultures and history.” In an interview with United Methodist News Service,
Mark Tooley, director of UMAction, said a proposed constitutional
amendment is necessary because it “cuts to the core the direction of
society” and will “uphold the tradition of marriage.” Tooley
said the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage reaffirms the
stance adopted by General Conference 2004. He said the General
Conference action was “more general” to address the issue
internationally, not just in the United States. Winkler
called on Congress to shift its attention away from “the politics” of
the passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage to focus on
poverty and injustice. “There
are so many more important matters that Congress should be dealing
with, such as bringing the ‘criminal’ war in Iraq to a halt,” said
Winker. “Why not work on giving health care to everyone in this country
and feeding the hungry?” “These issues of health, hunger and war are so much more important to the country and people of faith,” he asserted. *Shanta Bryant Gyan is a freelance writer based in the Washington, D.C. area.
| 
Korean News
