Unholy matrimony

Nearly 200 homosexual couples-some in drag, others in traditional wedding garb-last Monday held hands before an only-happy-to-oblige-you Willie Brown, the new mayor of San Francisco. Twenty couples at a time walked the aisle to Mr. Brown and said, among other things: "We pledge, while in this union, to be responsible for each other and to be committed to a relationship of loyalty and mutual caring."

Then a beaming Mayor Brown gave his city's official endorsement to the couples, among them two men in drag and wearing full nun's habits: "I hereby pronounce you lawfully recognized domestic partners. You may consummate the relationship," as if they hadn't already.

Deborah Oakley-Melvin and partner Denise Ratliff paid the city's new $35 registration fee, and stood among those at San Francisco's Herbst Theater reciting homosexual vows, as the local Lesbian and Gay Freedom Day Marching Band played on; in the future the ceremonies will be conducted alongside traditional marriages at the city clerk's office. Ms. Oakley-Melvin said the unprecedented event was symbolic of the gay movement in the United States, since it set a new course for others to follow. "We feel it's our responsibility to create role models for people who aren't in an environment like San Francisco," she said. She added in a Reuters interview: "Straight America and gay America need to look to us for models of what gay culture is."

On this count, all can agree: Last week's mass ceremony in San Francisco models the future of American homosexual culture, at least if some activists have their way. Across the country homosexual activists are pushing for official unions recognized by the state, and daring onlookers to stand up and contest their wedding-day intentions; traditionalist Christians, however, are rising to speak now, or forever forfeit the biblical sanctity of marriage in America.

The San Francisco ceremonies are just a start. Homosexual activists say while they think San Francisco's new nuptial offering is nice, they still want full, legal recognition. In fact, the cities of New York and Madison, Wis., already allow same-sex ceremonies. If the Hawaii Supreme Court next summer rules, as expected, that same-sex marriages are legal in that state, there could be a tidal wave of homosexual tourists going to Hawaii to be married. And because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the U.S. Constitution, other states could be forced to recognize those unions.

California Assemblyman William J. Knight, a Republican, has introduced a bill there invalidating "any marriage contracted outside this state between individuals of the same gender." It passed the state assembly handily, but is now mired in the state's Senate Judiciary Committee. A lobbyist for a homosexual group in Sacramento predicts that, should the bill be killed, "California is going to have literally thousands of couples who are going to come back from Hawaii expecting their marriage to be treated with the respect and dignity given every other marriage."

In more than a dozen states and on Capitol Hill, efforts are being made to preempt the Hawaii Supreme Court and enact laws not to recognize same-sex marriages, and prevent forcing one state to recognize another state's homosexual marriages.

Says the Family Research Council's Bob Knight: "The onus [to change current marriage standards] should not be on those defending marriage but on the tiny minority of people who are attempting to radically redefine it. I, for one, won't submit to the tactic of portraying tradition-minded Americans as radicals and close-minded bigots."

So far, only Idaho, Utah, and South Dakota have passed laws specifically prohibiting recognition by their states of homosexual marriages. Other states with pending legislation include Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

But in nine states-Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming-such bills have been either defeated, withdrawn, or killed in committee. Soon federal legislation will be introduced in both the House and the Senate to prohibit forcing one state to recognize homosexual unions legally performed in another state, but President Clinton is not expected to sign such a law.

In Colorado, Gov. Roy Romer vetoed a bill last week that would have denied recognition to same-sex marriages. Will Perkins, a Colorado Springs car dealer who worked on the recent Amendment 2 (a "no special rights for gays" measure passed in 1992), says Mr. Romer's move wasn't unexpected. "The polls here clearly indicate that about 70 percent of the people are opposed to same-sex marriage," said Mr. Perkins, who heads Colorado for Family Values. "But this is one of the cases where the courts and the politicians are willing to override the people."

In Georgia, a bill banning same-sex marriages is progressing slowly through the legislature. Meantime, a court ruling has provided a rare victory. In March, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the state's sodomy law and said the law served a compelling state interest in furthering the public's "moral welfare."

Frustrated homosexual-rights groups, who failed to convince the Georgia legislature to revoke the laws, turned to the courts, as they did successfully in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana. "The proscription against sodomy is a legitimate and valid exercise of state police power," the Georgia high court ruled. "The right to determine what is harmful to health and morals or what is criminal to the public welfare belongs to the people through their elected representatives."

In Iowa, Bill Horn has helped lead the effort to get a law passed banning same-sex marriages. But pro-family groups also used the state's pivotal primary position to garner support for such measures from presidential candidates. "We've known for months that the homosexual lobby is trying to go in under the radar with this [same-sex marriage]," he told WORLD. "But we knew we could get some attention with the caucuses."

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, a "Marriage Protection Rally" was held, attracting Pat Buchanan in person and written statements from Sen. Bob Dole, Steve Forbes, and Lamar Alexander. All said they would support congressional legislation supporting the biblical view of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

The status of efforts to pass biblical marriage preservation laws in other states: In Alabama, a bill is slated for a Senate committee vote in early April; in Alaska, a bill is stalled in the House education and social services committee; in Kansas, a bill that would amend current law to drop the requirement that judges okay underage marriages is currently in conference committee; in Mississippi, a bill died in committee, but proponents are confident it will pass when reintroduced; in Missouri, two bills, one prohibiting same-sex marriage and one preventing adoption by homosexual couples, are currently in committee; in Michigan, a measure is currently in committee; in Washington, legislation, passed by a 2-to-1 margin in the state House, was killed by a Senate committee.

In Illinois, a bill has cleared a Senate committee and now awaits a vote by the full body; in Kentucky, proponents say the marriage-preservation legislation has cleared the Senate but faces problems in the House; in Tennessee, bills prohibiting same-sex marriage and defining marriage biblically have passed House and Senate committees and are expected to be signed into law; in Virginia, committees killed a measure early in the legislative session; in Wisconsin, a bill was introduced last month and has been referred to a committee; and in Wyoming, although the measure failed this year, proponents say it was because the legislature was preoccupied with the budget, and the measure could pass next year.

Hawaii and San Francisco's new efforts aren't the first attempts to redefine biblical marriage. In 1885, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against polygamy and said that states must anchor their marriage laws "on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement" (Murphy v. Ramsey).

Casting that 1885 ruling aside, says FRC's Mr. Knight, "would not be the expansion of a right, but the destruction of a principle."

He cites homosexual activist Michaelangelo Signorile, who wrote last year in the homosexual periodical, Out, that activists should "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely ... to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

And Andrew Sullivan, the homosexual editor of The New Republic, says homosexual marriages, like current gay couplings, will reflect "a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman."

"The aggressors here are not ordinary people, who are doing their best to live according to ages-old, time-tested morality and family definition, but those who are trying to harness the power of the law to force acceptance of their agenda," said Mr. Knight. "Individuals struggling with same-sex desires should be accorded compassion, but this does not mean they should be given a mandate to radically redefine marriage."