Counterpoint: For the amendment

Mike Farris is a friend of mine. A person of unquestionable integrity. A big plus for the Christian conservative movement. I highly respect him. I have worked with him and hope to continue to have the privilege of doing so in the future. In fact, I have urged him to make broadcasting journalism a part of Patrick Henry University. Our country desperately needs the kind of students the school is turning out. They will be a great asset to the cause of Christ in years to come.

Mike and I agree on one thing. Both of us would like to have the strongest federal marriage amendment (FMA) possible. One that would ban "civil unions" as well as homosexual marriage. I only wish it were as easy to accomplish as it is to promote.

Mike and I are both members of the Arlington Group, a coalition of pro-family leaders that have been pushing

for a federal marriage amendment since last June.

One thing I have learned since we began is the attitude toward a federal marriage amendment by our representatives and senators. To be bluntly honest, many (if not most) of our members of Congress are literally scared to death of having to vote on an FMA. They wish it would simply go away. Agreed, a small number of congressmen on both sides of the issue are taking a public stand. But, overall, they basically wish it would go away.

Why do they feel this way? I cannot answer that question with fact. I can only give you my opinion. And it could be correct or incorrect.

They are afraid of the homosexual activists. Agreed, these individuals represent probably one-half of 1 percent of the population. But because of the tactics they use, the money they have, and their friends in key positions, congressmen are running scared.

They are also fearful of the media. Only people living like Rip Van Winkle are unaware of the overwhelming-indeed, nearly unanimous-support the media give to the homosexual cause. Members of Congress don't want a negative editorial in the newspaper concerning their support of an FMA.

They are also aware that this is an election year. You may wish they were all akin to Mr. Smith who went to Washington. But they aren't. I hate to say this, but I think many, if not most, of them are more interested in getting reelected than they are in what's best for the country. And also, they must live and survive in the environment inside the beltway. In other words, they feel (and perhaps correctly) that they must go along to get along. They simply don't want to go alone.

Someone-I don't know who but I know it's right-once said "politics is the art of compromise." I hate that phrase. But, living in the real world, I know it is oftentimes true. So if one cannot get the whole pie, is one willing to agree to get most of the pie?

I am supporting the FMA that has been introduced in both the House and Senate. Does that mean I like it? Not at all. But it does mean I must live in the real world, where water doesn't run uphill. I would like very much to have an FMA banning "civil unions," but under the current prevailing atmosphere I'm not even sure we can get any FMA passed. We had to pull some eyeteeth to get a handful of congressmen to support the proposed FMA.

In an earlier generation, there would have been enough Christians, with the support of the general public, to have assured that such a perverted activity as homosexual marriage would not even have been thinkable, much less have been put into law by some of the highest courts in the land. And, opening myself up to a barrage of criticism, the fault falls squarely at the foot of the institutional church and its various individual members. Liberal leaders-in the church, education, media, and a host of other influencing institutions -have convinced enough "Christians" that marriage is only a matter of commitment between two (or more) individuals regardless of their sex.

Are we so ignorant, are we so unconcerned, are we so blind that we cannot see the impact-cultural, economic, legal, you name the sphere-that homosexual marriage will bring? Not only Western Civilization-which came out of the mind of Christ-but the whole of civilization will be drastically changed. Forget the family -mother, father, children-because it will not exist in that brave new world. Look for the state to take on more and more responsibilities for children.

And, like their leaders in Congress, this matter isn't even on the radar screen for the "average Christian," much less the average citizen.

I only wish we could get Congress and conservatives (even Christian conservatives) to implement Mike's proposal. While it breaks my heart to say so, "It ain't going to happen." So I must be satisfied at the present time to take most of the pie if we can get it.

Perhaps those who come after us will take up the cause and eventually succeed where we have failed.

Pray to God that they will.

-Mr. Wildmon is president of the

American Family Association