Monday, the U.S. Senate took up debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), which if ratified, would amend our U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thereby protecting the institution of marriage nationwide from the ravages of activist judges and homosexual attacks on morality.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are lining up for or against this proposed amendment. As usual, the ideological spin-doctors have been busy, particularly on the left where a propaganda campaign to smear the overwhelming majority of Americans who support traditional marriage as bigots and homophobes continues unabated. Some leading Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton (D-MSM), have taken the hypocritical stand that they want to protect marriage, but oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Sen. John McCain (R-Gang of 14) claims he opposes the MPA on Constitutional grounds:

"I will vote against it because I believe very strongly, first of all, in the sanctity of union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) – Fox News Sunday, May 21, 2006

For once, this author agrees with the maverick Senator from Arizona, and will take his statement as his word that protection of marriage is a responsibility best left to the several states. As an Illinois citizen, I actively support the grass roots Protect Marriage Illinois ballot question, which would ask the Illinois General Assembly to amend the Illinois Constitution in order to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thereby protecting the institution of marriage statewide from the ravages of activist judges and homosexual attacks on morality.

I believe that supporters of the national MPA have the right idea, but are not necessarily pursuing it in the right venue. While one can question the timing and scope of the MPA, its intent is clearly a positive one, aimed at defending society’s most fundamental institution, the family. I agree with this statement President Bush made in a weekly radio address:

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

However, it is clear that the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who believed in a limited federal government role, purposely left many powers to the states, realizing that many decisions are best left up to individual states to uniquely decide for themselves. Ballot initiatives calling for state constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, have passed by overwhelming margins in nineteen states, and are pending in many more.

The effort to amend state constitutions nationwide to protect traditional marriage is now well under way. However, a nasty problem has arisen in seven states, where activist judges in California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Washington, have already taken the law into their own hands and legislated their personal agenda from the bench to thwart the overwhelming will of the people. It is for this reason that a national MPA initiative is underway in the U.S. Senate.

While it is still too early to determine when or if the MPA initiative will be successful, it is clear that the national level debate will serve to shine the light of truth and inquiry on this very important topic, thereby assisting the grass roots marriage protection efforts already underway in many states. Such attention can only serve to energize the large base of family values voters. Here in Illinois, more conservative family-values oriented candidates, particularly congressional candidates, may well benefit from increased attention to the defense of traditional marriage issue.