The study, “For Kid’s Sake:  Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People,” noted that Australia ranks high on social development, education, and economic well being.  However, there is something underlying:  Increased reports of child abuse and neglect, as well as an increase in mental health disorders.  These reports encompass all socioeconomic levels.

Why has this been occurring?  According to the study’s author, Patrick Parkinson, the increase in child abuse reports and mental health disorders can be attributed to one key factor:  The breakdown of the family.

“Living in a family other than that of the two biological parents before the age of 16 is well-documented as being associated with a wide range of adverse results for children’s well-being.

Some people consider that the reason for this is that the adults who form stable marriages tend to be more well-adjusted and better off economically, so it is not so much the question of family structures but rather the personal characteristics of the parents that is the deciding factor.

Although this might be true to some extent the report quoted research that said studies using sophisticated statistical controls, including genetic factors, point in the direction of family breakdown being a significant cause of problems for children, rather than it just being the quality of the adults.”

There is no doubt that the breakdown of the family has been a key contributor to the rise in mental illness and child abuse cases.  Poor family relationships, marital unhappiness, and divorce all have negative impacts on a child’s well being.  The statistics are alarming, and children in the United States are experiencing the same effects as well.

What can be done to prevent the breakdown of the family?  Parkinson suggests stronger marriage preparation and implementing and providing greater support for organizations that help families.

However, Parkinson is also forgetting one important point:  Encouraging families to attend religious services.  According to FRC’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI), children who attend religious services weekly tend to be less depressed and that marriages tend to be stronger and happier when couples attend church together.  Perhaps the greatest way to combat the breakdown of the family is through faith.

Click below to listen to the interview:

Henry Potrykus on Family Policy Matters

Reading that story brought to mind how Woody Allen once described the perfect arrangement he had with Mia Farrow:  separate apartments on opposite sides of Central Park where they could see each other’s lights go off at night.  But we know how that ended.   (For those too young to remember:  Woody ended up having an affair with, and then marrying, his own stepdaughter, and in his defense famously said, “The heart wants what the heart wants.”)

Last week the London Telegraph reviewed another new social relationship trend:  people who are neither married nor in love (nor, in some cases, even acquainted) are apparently having children together through the use of in vitro fertilization.  Why?

The story leads with examples of homosexuals who wanted to have a child of their own partnering up with people of the opposite sex to share biological material.  But also interviewed was this single heterosexual woman, approaching the end of her fertile years, who explained:  “In a worst-case scenario I would seek an anonymous donor, but I’ve always thought a child needs a father.  At the very least I wanted a donor who would visit regularly.”

What kid wouldn’t want Daddy Sperm visiting regularly?  But why does little Johnny hide under the bed when the door bell rings?

In his first interview on the issue since making those comments, Gov. Perry spoke with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today to addresses the Aspen remarks, discuss the 10th Amendment’s application to marriage, and his support for a federal marriage amendment.

Gov. Perry commented:

“I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me,’ and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.”

Listen to the rest of segment covering marriage here.  The unofficial transcript follows the jump below.

To hear the complete interview with Gov. Perry, tune in Friday to Washington Watch Weekly.

For more on the marriage issue, see FRC’s documentary, “The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage.”

TONY PERKINS: You mentioned a moment ago the marriage amendment back in Texas, back in 2005 or, I think it was 2005.

GOV. PERRY: Yes sir, yes sir.

TONY PERKINS: In fact I was down there for a number of those pastors conferences. Worked with you on a couple of occasions as we were promoting that marriage amendment in Texas, so I know where you stand on the issue. But last week you were in Aspen, Colorado, at a Republican governor’s event, and you made some comments regarding New York’s recent passage of same-sex marriage. If I can, I want to quote those words from you that have been circulated, and give you a chance to respond to that.

GOV. PERRY: Sure

TONY PERKINS: You said that, “Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said that marriage can be between two people of the same sex and you know what that is New York and that is their business and that is fine with me, that is their call. If you believe in the tenth amendment, stay out of their business”.

GOV. PERRY: Let me just, I probably needed to add a few words after “that’s fine with me” its fine with me that the state is using their sovereign right to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me, my stance had not changed. I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

My record as governor of Texas reflects that — a very strong commitment to defending traditional marriage, including those efforts of Texas to pass the defense of marriage act, which you were at some of those events where we were promoting the people and state of Texas to go and defend traditional values.

And I might add it overwhelmingly was adopted by seventy-five percent of Texas voters. Again, my comment reflects my recognition that marriage and most issues of the family historically have been decided by the people at the state and local level. That is absolutely the state of law under our constitution.

TONY PERKINS: Well, I agree as an author of nation’s first convent marriage law in the state of Louisiana back when I was in office. I think marriage and family policy is best dealt with at the state level. But the tenth amendment — and I am a strong supporter. I fought the federal government on a number of issues when they were trying to force us to do things.

But when you look at what’s happening on marriage, the real fear is that states like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas. At that point the states rights argument is lost.

GOV. PERRY: Right and that is the reason that the federal marriage amendment is being offered, it’s that small group of activist judges, and frankly a small handful, if you will, of states, and liberal special interests groups that intend on a redefinition of, if you will, marriage on the nation, for all of us, which I adamantly oppose.

Indeed to not pass the federal marriage amendment would impinge on Texas, and other states not to have marriage forced upon us by these activist judges and special interest groups.

Our constitution was designed to respect states including the amendment process. That is one of the beauties and why I talk about in my book “Fed Up” that we need as a nation to get back to really respecting our constitution and the tenth amendment in particular which allows the states to impede against each other, whether it is on taxes or regulations or litigation and create the economic environment.

But the overall constitutional protection, if you will, by and how we amend our United States Constitution to reflect the values of the nation as whole is very important. Balanced budget amendment, another one of those with all of the debt ceiling talk going on right now. The balanced budget amendment and clearly telling those people in Washington, “look your spending too much money, and one way we protect your human nature, which is to say yes to special interest groups, is to prohibit you from doing that by passing a balanced budget amendment.” And I hope we’ll do that, and I hope we also pass the federal marriage amendment as well.

TONY PERKINS: Governor, we are about out of time but I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think I hear what you are saying. The support given what’s happening across the nation, the fear of the courts, the administration’s failure to defend the defense of marriage act.

The only and thin line of protection for those states that have defined marriage, that have been historically been defined between a man and a woman. The support of a marriage amendment is a pro-state’s rights position, because it will defend the rights of states to define marriage as it has been.

GOV. PERRY: Yes sir, and I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment. That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. It respects the rights of the state by requiring three quarters of a states vote to ratify. It’s really strong medicine but is again our founding fathers had such great wisdom and their wisdom is just as clear and profound today as it was back in the late eighteenth century.

TONY PERKINS: Well Governor Perry I want to thank you from taking time out of your schedule to join us on Washington Watch Radio. I look forward to being with you in Houston, Texas, in Reliant Stadium I look forward to seeing you.

GOV. PERRY: It’s going to be a great day and I look forward to being with you, God speed to you and God bless you.

This headline is entirely wrong. Same-sex “marriage” is absolutely, unequivocally not legal under federal law. Ever. At any time.

That is because of a federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (usually abbreviated DOMA). Public Law 104-199 was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress (342-67 in the House, 85-14 in the Senate), and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

One part of the Defense of Marriage Act provided that states could not be obligated to recognize same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states.

The other key provision of DOMA (found in Section 3 of the bill), now under challenge in several courts, defines marriage for all purposes under federal law. It states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

This statute (now codified in Title I, Chapter 1, Section 7 of the United States Code) has never been repealed. It has never been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the law. And it is unequivocal in forbidding federal recognition of same-sex “marriage.”

What Grant actually describes is not any ambiguity about the state of the law, but rather the duplicity of the current administration under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. It is no secret that Obama would like to see DOMA repealed, but Holder has stated that in the meantime, “Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch.”

Holder’s actions, however, have belied those words. The latest example, described in Grant’s blog post, was Holder’s decision to overturn a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had ruled against an application for resident status by an Irish man who entered into a civil union with an American in New Jersey. Holder asked the Board to consider the case again, and determine “whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a ‘spouse’ under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” This is irrational, given that “the requirements of DOMA” are not “absent,” and it is utterly hypocritical when viewed in light of Holder’s promise to continue enforcement of DOMA.

In addition to the misleading headline, there is one other part of Grant’s blog post that requires some careful fact-checking. It is this paragraph:

One reason for the controversies is that the Department of Justice is opposed to the law. The opposition, however, only applies in certain jurisdictions. Contrary to headlines, the Department of Justice will defend DOMA in some courts. In February, Attorney General Eric Holder informed the Congress that the Department of Justice is opting out of defending DOMA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In other words, the DOJ will no longer defend the act if a gay couple appeals a decision in New York, Connecticut, or Vermont, but it will defend the act in other states.

Really? I have not hesitated to accuse the Attorney General of hypocrisy with regard to DOMA, but not with quite such a level of hypocrisy that they would argue in one court that a law is unconstitutional while simultaneously arguing in another court that it is not. Yet that is what Grant appears to be stating is the current stance of the Justice Department.

I think Mr. Grant has mis-read (or perhaps not read all of) Mr. Holder’s letter to Congress on February 23. The very opening sentence of that letter reads,

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

This amounted to a reversal of position for the Justice Department, which had defended DOMA, in the past, in other cases. For example, a federal district court judge in Massachusetts last year declared DOMA unconstitutional in a pair of cases, which are now on appeal to the First Circuit. The Justice Department filed briefs defending DOMA in those cases as recently as January 13 of this year.

To understand why the administration reversed its position, you must understand the different standards for deciding “equal protection” cases—“rational basis” vs. “heightened scrutiny.”

When a law creates a “classification” that treats some individuals or groups differently from others (in this case, treating opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex couples), it may sometimes be challenged as violating the constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection” of the law. However, most laws are judged under a “rational basis” test, meaning that a legislative enactment will be upheld as long as there is any conceivable rational basis for the classification.

However, “heightened scrutiny” usually applies to classifications based on characteristics considered immutable and irrelevant to legitimate policy objectives, possessed by groups who are minorities or politically powerless and have been subject to a history of discrimination. The classic examples are race and sex. Use of a “heightened scrutiny” standard increases the chances of a court striking down a legislative enactment.

Earlier cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA (such as the Massachusetts cases mentioned above) had been filed in federal court circuits in which there was controlling precedent saying that classifications based on “sexual orientation” are subject only to a “rational basis” test. The DOJ’s briefs had argued that DOMA was constitutional by this standard.

The new lawsuits challenging DOMA in New York and Connecticut, however, were filed in federal courts located in a circuit (the 2^nd) without any such precedent. Mr. Holder claims that this caused the DOJ to re-examine the question of the appropriate standard of inquiry, and that in turn led him to declare that “classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.” (It could be argued that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman actually does not classify on the basis of “sexual orientation” at all, but that would require a separate blog post.)

Holder wrote, “Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen” (the two new Second Circuit cases).

What if the Second Circuit rejects the administration’s “heightened scrutiny” argument? Holder stated,

If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard.

Here, Holder appears to stand by the Department’s previous arguments under the more lenient standard—but he could hardly have done otherwise without appearing utterly foolish. But to say this means the Department “will defend the act” at all, as Grant states, seems a stretch. Note, for instance, the use of the passive voice—“a reasonable argument . . . may be proffered,” not that we will proffer such an argument.

Even before making the statement above, Holder declared, “This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute.”

Still, the focus in Holder’s letter on the newer Second Circuit cases might be seen as still leaving some ambiguity about the DOJ’s defense of DOMA in other courts—until you reach the penultimate paragraph of the letter. Here, he states,

I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation [emphasis added] of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The reason for the primary focus on the Second Circuit cases in Holder’s February 23 letter to Congress was one of timing—he concludes by warning Speaker Boehner (as the likely new defender of DOMA), “A motion to dismiss in the Windsor and Pedersen cases would be due on March 11, 2011”—just sixteen days after the letter was sent. But “courts in other pending DOMA litigation” would be given the same statement.

The position of the administration on the defense of DOMA is now clear—the law “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” and “the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute.” As a result, “the Department will cease defense of Section 3.”

Tobin Grant’s claim that DOJ’s “opposition [to DOMA] only applies in certain jurisdictions” and that “the DOJ . . . will defend the act in other states” must be rated as incorrect.

Indiana is one of twelve states that define marriage as between one man and one woman in their statutes, but not in their constitution.  Many proponents of traditional marriage are hopeful that this will soon change as HJR 6, a constitutional marriage protection amendment, has now successfully passed both the House and Senate.  Before its addition to the Indiana Constitution however, it will need to pass next year’s legislative body as well, and then be approved by the voters.  Still, successful passage of this first step is definitely something to be celebrated by those desiring to protect a rightful definition of marriage, one of the most foundational institutions of society.  Further emphasizing the sacred bonds of marriage, SB 119 defines a “Covenant Marriage” and provides legal grounds for male and female couples to declare their marriage a Covenant Marriage.

There are many bills this session that regulate or restrict abortion, including several bills that address its funding. House Bill 1210 covers everything from restricting abortion based on an unborn child’s ability to feel pain, to requiring physicians to inform women of the potential risks involved in an abortion and requiring the physicians to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, to providing funding to health care providers who offer breast cancer screening, to details about fetal development materials which must be placed on the state department’s website.  It recently passed the house with a vote of 72 to 23, and is now in the Senate Committee on Health and Provider Services.

Other bills concerning abortion include:

HB 1204 - Requires an abortion doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

HB 1205 – Prohibits the state from funding abortion or entities that perform abortions.

HB 1228 and SB 488 – Ensures conscience protection for health care workers.

HB 1258 – Establishes requirements for the prescription of an abortion drug.

HB1474 – Requires abortion clinics to file “terminated pregnancy forms” and specifies the content of those forms.

SB 20 – Prohibits the state from entering into a contract with or making grants to Planned Parenthood and cancels any current state funding.

SB 50 – Requires a woman to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

SB 116 – Prohibits health insurance plans established under Obamacare from providing coverage of abortion.

SB 241 – Prohibits insurance coverage of elective abortion unless it is through a separate rider.

SB 328 and SB 457 – Specifies what information should be given a woman in order for her to make an informed consent to an abortion.

SB 522 – Prohibits abortion after 20 weeks based on the unborn child’s capacity to feel pain.

And finally, SB 290 which makes it illegal to perform an abortion at any stage in the pregnancy except to save the life of the woman.

Also sitting in committee is a “Bias Crimes” bill (HB 1332) which would allow the perpetrator of a crime to receive a harsher sentence if it was determined that the victim was acted upon because of his or her “gender identity” or “sexual orientation.”  These types of bills are dangerous because they seek to legalize the punishment of thoughts and motives in addition to criminal actions.

All bills can be accessed by clicking on their number.  For a complete list of legislation FRC is tracking or to check the status of these bills click here for our legislative tracker.

Same-sex “marriage” bills (H 5012 and S 29) have been heard in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but have not yet received a vote. Gordon Fox, openly homosexual and the speaker of the largely Democratic House, wants to delay the vote on the House version of the bill until he can be sure it has enough supporting votes to pass.  This hesitance to move forward with same-sex “marriage” is good news for supporters of marriage defined as one man and one woman.

Even if the votes are obtained to pass the House, Senate passage is far from certain especially since the Senate President, Theresa Paiva-Weed, opposes same-sex “marriage.”  Governor Lincoln Chafee, however, supports the bills, even urging their passage in his inaugural address, and has pledged his signature should one of them reach his desk.

These two same-sex “marriage” bills are not the only legislation regarding marriage and relationships in Rhode Island.  Also heard in the Senate Judiciary committee last Thursday were two constitutional amendments defining marriage (S 162 and S 115).  Senate Bill 162 defines the only valid marriage in RI as between a man and a woman, while Senate Bill 115 also defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but leaves open the possibility of establishing civil unions for same-sex “couples.”  Should either of these bills pass (or the House version, H 5260), it would be submitted to the citizens of Rhode Island for a vote.

Two bills regarding domestic unions between persons of the same sex have also received a hearing.  Senate Bill 376 would legalize “domestic unions” between any two adult spouses regardless of sex, and Senate Bill 377 would establish “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” for any two adults who do not fit within the legal definition of marriage, essentially granting the rights, benefits, and protections of marriage to same-sex couples.

Also in both House and Senate committees are bills that further expand the definition of “hate crimes,” making the motivation behind a crime a crime itself and including gender identity and sexual orientation as a protected class (H 5089 and S 121).  In addition, several bills implementing abortion restrictions or unborn child protections are currently in committee.

Shortly before the Wyoming legislature adjourned (March 3^rd), a final vote to concur on HB74, as passed out of the joint conference committee, was held in both the House and Senate.  The final version of HB74 stated that Wyoming would not recognize same-sex “marriages” performed out-of-state, but did not address civil unions or other relationships.  The House voted 31 to 28 to pass the bill as amended, however the Senate failed the bill by a 16 to 14 vote.

It is unfortunate that this bill would die by such a close margin, especially with strong Republican majorities in both Houses.  Becky Vandeberghe, president of WyWatch Family Action, emphasized however that this bill and other pro-family bills had made it farther in the legislative process this year than in past sessions, and that constituents now have a clear voting record of their legislators stance on marriage.

Other marriage-related bills that did not receive a final vote before the session adjourned include:  SJ 5, a Marriage Protection Amendment, HB 150, a bill establishing civil unions, and HB 149, a bill that would legalize same-sex “marriage.”  These are issues that Wyoming voters can expect to weigh in on in future sessions.

Concerning other issues, three bills that did not pass out of the legislature this session include a bill that would prohibit assisted suicide (HB 148), a bill that would establish gender identity/sexual orientation “non-discrimination” (HB 142), and a bill that would require doctors to give specified information to women and tell them they could view an ultrasound before performing an abortion (HB 251).

Yet now, DOMA is under the sharpest attack in its history—despite the fact that four federal courts have already upheld its constitutionality, and no federal or state appellate court has ever said that it violates the U.S. Constitution. In July 2010, however, a single federal District Court Judge in Boston, Joseph L. Tauro, ruled in a pair of cases that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA is unconstitutional. In November 2010, two more federal court challenges to DOMA were filed in New York and Connecticut. In total, there are no less than ten currently pending federal court cases which involve some form of challenge to DOMA. Here are some key questions and answers about the current status of this law:

Q: What did Attorney General Eric Holder announce on February 23 about the administration’s position regarding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

A: In a press release and in a letter to Congress, Mr. Holder said that he and President Obama have concluded that one of the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act—the one which limits the federal government to recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman—is unconstitutional. This marked a sharp reversal, since the Department of Justice has submitted several briefs defending the constitutionality of DOMA in previous court cases.

This decision represents a shocking abdication of the Attorney General’s, and the President’s, constitutional responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and sets a dangerous precedent for future executive refusals to defend existing law.

Q: What motivated this change of position?

A: Politics likely played a major role, as the Obama Administration has been under intense pressure from pro-homosexual activists to stop defending DOMA. There is also evidence which suggests collusion between the Justice Department and attorneys who are challenging DOMA and the definition of marriage in court. Attorneys in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, who seek to overturn California’s marriage amendment (Proposition 8) and establish a federal constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” filed a Motion to Vacate Stay with the Ninth Circuit, containing detailed citations from the Attorney General’s letter, just hours after the letter was released.

Family Research Council has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for any communications between the DOJ and litigants and attorneys in this case or in the cases challenging DOMA in other courts.

Q: Hasn’t President Obama opposed DOMA all along?

A: Yes, Mr. Obama favors the repeal of DOMA. However, it is possible to believe that a law represents bad public policy, while at the same time believing that it does not violate the Constitution. This had been the position of the Obama administration until February 23, 2011.

Q—How can the Administration justify such an about-face?

A: Earlier cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA (such as the Massachusetts cases decided by Judge Tauro) had been filed in federal court circuits in which there was controlling precedent saying that classifications based on “sexual orientation” are subject only to a “rational basis” test—the most lenient level of scrutiny, under which legislative choices are accorded the greatest deference. The DOJ’s briefs had argued that DOMA was constitutional by this standard.

The new lawsuits challenging DOMA in New York and Connecticut, however, were filed in federal courts located in a circuit (the Second) without any such precedent. Mr. Holder claims that this caused the DOJ to re-examine the question of the appropriate standard of inquiry, and that in turn led him to declare that “classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.”

Q: What does “heightened scrutiny” mean?

A: When a law creates a “classification” that treats some individuals or groups differently from others (in this case, treating opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex couples), it may sometimes be challenged as violating the Constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection” of the law. However, most laws are judged under a “rational basis” test, meaning that a legislative enactment will be upheld as long as there is any conceivable rational basis for the classification.

However, “heightened scrutiny” usually applies to classifications based on characteristics considered immutable and irrelevant to legitimate policy objectives, possessed by groups who are minorities or politically powerless and have been subject to a history of discrimination. The classic examples are race and sex. The Supreme Court has never said that this standard applies to “sexual orientation.” It would increase the chances of a court striking down laws which limit marriage or its benefits to the union of one man and one woman, such as DOMA.

Q: How did the Attorney General justify this call for “heightened scrutiny.”

A: Mr. Holder asserted that “a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable.” However, he cited only one source in support of this contention—one dated 1992. In a footnote, he further claims that “discrimination has been based on the incorrect belief that sexual orientation is a behavioral characteristic that can be changed.”

In fact the theory that there is a “gay gene” or that people are “born gay” has been largely discredited by science since the early 1990’s. Studies of identical twins, such as one in the American Journal of Sociology in 2002, “support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent” homosexuality. And evidence that homosexuals can change has come even from Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who led the effort to remove homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In a 2003 study, Spitzer found that “changes [in sexual orientation] . . . were not limited to sexual behavior and . . . self-identity. The changes encompassed sexual attraction . . . the core aspects of sexual orientation.”

Q: Who can defend DOMA if the Justice Department refuses to?

A: The courts have long recognized Congress’s vital interest in defending the constitutionality of its Acts in the rare circumstances that the Justice Department refuses to provide such a defense. This happens as recently as 1983 in INS v. Chadha. The Supreme Court made clear in the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd that individual members cannot assert these interests, as Congress can only act through resolutions passed by the majority. Either chamber may do so individually.

Q: What would it mean if DOMA were struck down by the courts?

A: The immediate result would be federal government recognition of same-sex “marriages” that are already legal in the state where they occurred. However, if the federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is found unconstitutional, it would be only a matter of time before the same definition at the state level would be struck down—including in the 29 states that have put that definition in their own constitutions. This is exactly the remedy sought by the plaintiffs in Perry (the Proposition 8 case), which is now before the Ninth Circuit.

Q: What should be done now?

A: Congress must continue to defend DOMA in court, since the Justice Department refuses to do so. Bills to legalize same-sex “marriage” must be defeated in state legislatures, and additional state marriage amendments must be adopted defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These make it hard for any court to find that there is an “emerging consensus” in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Finally, pro-family groups actively involved in the defense of marriage in court, such as the Alliance Defense Fund, and others involved in filing and coordinating amicus briefs, such as Family Research Council, need financial support for these efforts.

It is quite possible that the issue of same-sex “marriage” will reach the U. S. Supreme Court in 2012 or 2013. Pro-family citizens and office-holders must “speak now, or forever hold your peace.”

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Pierre Bynum’s testimony.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Peter Sprigg’s testimony.