Concerned Women for America has withheld support for this proposal from its very first appearance because its enactment would put into the U.S. Constitution the power of states to create "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," or other false marriage substitutes. While acknowledging the goodwill of its supporters, we see it as a step backward instead of a step forward in protecting marriage.

Moreover, even if we had a perfect amendment proposal, it is very clear that efforts to generate support for a constitutional amendment in this election year are bound to fail. President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment on marriage has turned this into an election issue, making it extremely difficult for members of the minority party to support any such proposal without giving the appearance of betraying their party. In addition, several members from the president's own political party have expressed their opposition to an amendment. If any proposed constitutional amendment on marriage is brought to the floor in either House of Congress, it will certainly fail to get the necessary two-thirds supermajority, and quite possibly fail to get even a simple majority of votes.

This does not mean that nothing can be done at the federal level to protect marriage.

CWA has endorsed and is urging the congressional leadership to seek a vote on the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Indiana).

This bill invokes the power of Congress, under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It prohibits the federal courts from considering any case challenging the definition of marriage "for all purposes of federal law" as the union of one man and one woman, stated in the Defense of Marriage Act. It does give the U.S. Supreme Court immediate jurisdiction over any case that might arise concerning the obligation of a state to recognize a "marriage" performed in another state that does not conform to that definition.

The Marriage Protection Act is not the ultimate solution to the threat against marriage. But its enactment would ensure that no irresponsible federal judge could decree that the entire nation must recognize same-sex "marriages" and it would prevent the transmission of same-sex "marriages" from one state to another. At a minimum, these protections would buy the pro-family movement several years for the development and implementation of a good plan for amending the Constitution.

The Marriage Protection Act might possibly be enacted in 2004. (In contrast to a constitutional amendment, it requires only a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than two-thirds supermajorities. It does not require the time-consuming and risky procedure of ratification by 38 of the states. Support for it has not been tainted by the partisan politics of a presidential election.) And whether it passes or fails, a vote on the Marriage Protection Act will help pro-family citizen-lobbyists by providing an actual vote on the protection of marriage, so we will be able to focus the proper attention on those legislators who need it, and also to reward the friend of marriage and punish its enemies in the voting booth.