October 1, 2004

Protecting Marriage Is Not Bigotry

By Congressman Joe Pitts

Marriage is a universal human institution. Some form of it has existed in all societies because of its unique role in the raising and protecting of children.

However, wherever we look today, it seems that we are seeing the gradual weakening of the institution of family that historically we have relied on to raise kids.  And while marriage has taken a beating from divorce and other factors, the statistics still show that the best home for kids is still with a mom and a dad who are married.  The future of marriage really does matter.  But activists are using activist judges redefine marriage and weaken it for generations to come.

I spoke twice on the House floor this week in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.  The amendment says that marriage as we know it shall remain the union of one man and one woman and that states, not courts, should determine the distribution of marriage’s legal benefits.

During debate, I was shocked when some of my colleagues who oppose this amendment claimed that those of us supporting it were bigots.  It’s one thing to disagree on policy or approach, it’s something completely different to tie those who disagree with you to the terrible, racist policies of our nation’s past. 

At one point, when a letter sent by an African-American pastor in support of the amendment was read into the Congressional Record, Georgia Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the civil rights movement, took to the floor to respond.  He said, “Some of these so-called black ministers and so-called civil rights leaders never supported civil rights. They never marched for one day. They never put their bodies on the line for the cause of civil rights.”

Congressman Lewis was wrong.  The Marriage Protection Amendment, which I supported, is not about civil rights.  And his indictment that true civil rights leaders do not support the amendment is wrong.

Take, for example, Reverend Walter Fauntroy.  Throughout the last forty years, Reverend Fauntroy has been synonymous with the civil rights movement. He was the Washington, DC coordinator of the 1963 March on Washington in which Congressman Lewis marched.  He also directed the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery in Alabama, the 1966 Meridith Mississippi Freedom March, and the 1983 20^th Anniversary March on Washington.  During his 20 years of service in Congress as the District of Columbia’s delegate, he helped found the Congressional Black Caucus and remained active in civil rights issues.  Reverend Fauntroy supports the Marriage Protection Amendment.

When he announced his support for the Marriage Protection Amendment (then called the Federal Marriage Amendment) he said, “Marriage is the classroom where children, in interaction with their male and female parents, learn the most important lessons of civil society…When you lose that glue, the fabric of your society begins to unravel…That is why I am pleased to join Americans of every color and creed in this Alliance for Marriage, in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

Does Congressman Lewis count Reverend Fauntroy among his “so-called civil rights leaders?”  Maybe he was talking about two of our nation’s largest African-American denominations: the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church of God in Christ.  Both denominations support the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Or perhaps he meant organizations like the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the "Big Four" civil rights groups that have fought for equal rights for sixty years.  CORE supports the Marriage Protection Amendment.

The fact is the Marriage Protection Amendment is not a civil rights issue.  If it harmed civil rights, Reverend Fauntroy, CORE, these denominations, not to mention the nation’s largest association of Hispanic churches in the United States, the largest African-American Muslim group in the United States, and many others would not support it.

Our marriage laws exist not to oppress, but to support families.  No one can tell me that people who believe children need moms and dads are bigots.  And it is patently absurd to suggest that supporters of marriage, many of whom marched alongside the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and went to jail to oppose discrimination, are engaged in a campaign to discriminate.

This amendment is meant to protect marriage and our children.  When marriage ceases to be seen as a means to bring people together for the sake of children, marriage suffers; and when marriage suffers, children pay the price.

While we were unable to secure the two-thirds supermajority needed to pass the amendment this week, we did get a sizable bipartisan majority.  The fight is far from over.  We will build upon our bipartisan majority in November and will work to pass this amendment next year.

#   #   #