As chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition I worked very hard to have DOMA passed by the House and Senate. There was tremendous pressure from the media and the far left to kill the bill. Those opposed included the ACLU, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way and a vast number of homosexual groups. Once on the floor for a vote not many Senators or congressmen wanted to side with the homosexual minions who opposed it. As a result the Senate passed DOMA 85-14 and the House passed it 342-76. As these were veto proof votes, President Bill Clinton was forced to sign DOMA into law.

But in America the laws passed by elected members of state legislators and the Congress mean very little anymore. Tired old men in long black robes who have been appointed for life now determine the laws of the land. Knowing this, the liberals and the homosexuals immediately challenged various aspects of the DOMA at the state level. At the time we passed DOMA we were warned by legal scholars that Federal courts and perhaps the Supreme Court would invalidate it at some future time. Since the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas legalized sodomy that time is now near. Thus the need for Senate hearings conducted by Senator Cronyn. While some believe DOMA will prevail, most believe it will fall to court challenge. (SEE MORE ON MARRIAGE IN THE HOUSE SECTION)

DC VOUCHERS

Several months ago Mayor Anthony Williams and President George W. Bush held a press conference at the Kipp Academy in Washington, DC which I attended and reported on. The purpose was to promote a small experiment to allow kids in the failing DC schools to have the same choice of schools as do the kids of congressmen and Senators. The idea was to issue 2,000 vouchers to low-income kids in those failing schools. Washington, DC spends $12,046 per child compared to an average of $7,079 nationwide and still lags back at last place in virtually everything from SAT scores to reading ability at fourth grade level. President George W. Bush is a strong supporter of school choice.

THE HOUSE

MARRIAGE PROTECTION

The reaction to freshman Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's proposed Amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage has split the conservative community in Washington, DC. The original problem began because the language of the amendment was never presented to or discussed with more than a handful of conservative leaders before it was officially proposed. It was presented as "Here it is, support it," with virtually no discussion. Many groups found the second paragraph of the amendment a major problem because it specifically tells states that they don't have to, but that they may, enact civil unions or give benefits to same sex unions. Thus the Amendment says that marriage is for one man and one woman only, but two men may have a civil union and receive all the rights and benefits of marriage if so granted by a state as long as it is called something else. This was added to satisfy economic conservative groups that are strongly in favor of states' rights, but had the effect of turning away key social conservative groups. Some groups who support the language claim the second section does not have that effect. That is the problem. The Amendment was originally written by Judge Robert Bork to mimic current constitutional language. It is a very short amendment and I believe in the future can be reinterpreted by judges who may find a "conflict" between it and other articles of the Constitution.

There will be a Marriage Protection press conference at the National Press Club here in Washington on Thursday morning where every major group supporting marriage between one man and one woman will be represented. I will speak on behalf of the Religious Freedom Coalition. It is my prayer, and I hope yours also, that a consensus language on a Constitutional Amendment will be reached by the various conservative groups prior to the news conference.

Dissension among conservatives on the Federal Marriage Amendment is causing great displeasure at the White House and Republican Party headquarters. The Republican Party chairman, Ed Gillespie, wants opposition to homosexual "marriage" to be a major part of the Republican platform in 2004. Polls show the vast majority of Americans oppose homosexual marriage. Mr. Gillespie understands that social conservatives are energized by this issue and will vote next November for the party that stands up for the traditional institution of marriage. But, as of now, there is no rallying point because of the division among conservative groups over amendment language. Perhaps next week's meetings among conservative groups will change that. (For general reference see Bill Bennett's Mending the Hearth)