McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–The conflict over the nature and definition of marriage currently taking place in America can be summed up in the words of inimitable baseball great Yogi Berra: “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
The first battle to redefine marriage took place during the latter half of the 1800s. The effort then, as now, was to expand the definition of matrimony to include relationships other than the traditional concept of one man and one woman.
Like the recent movement, the first was initiated by a group of aggressive and dedicated activists. They even managed to influence a “state” to embrace an expanded definition of marriage. This revised understanding of matrimony, which included polygamy, became legal in the Mormon dominated Utah Territory in the 1840s.
When Utah sought statehood in 1849, the application was rejected. The rebuff was due primarily to the territory’s practice of polygamy. In order for Utah to become a state, Congress stipulated that it must ban the practice of polygamy in its constitution. The territorial legislature refused. As a result, subsequent applications were rejected as well.
When Congress enacted a series of legislation aimed at territories allowing polygamy, the Utah Territory resisted via the courts on the grounds the laws were a violation of the free exercise of religion.
From 1878 to 1890, six cases came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Each time, laws banning polygamy were upheld. The court believed the practice of polygamy would undermine the basic building block of society — the family.
In 1890 the conflict over polygamy finally came to an end. Wilford Woodruff, president of the Mormon Church, announced that he had an epiphany that included a divine directive releasing Mormons from the practice of polygamy. In 1896, Utah became America’s 45th state.
Utah’s effort to redefine matrimony in the United States was a protracted and emotional struggle. For five decades the Mormon dominated territory made a concerted effort to have America accept an alternate view of traditional marriage. In the end, monogamy prevailed.
The recent push for the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” was born 35 years ago. The homosexual rights movement traces its beginning to the Stonewall riots that took place in New York City during the summer of 1969.
For three decades activists have been subtly seeking to gain societal approval for their “alternate” lifestyle. Thus far they have achieved the goals of tolerance and acceptance. However, marriage represents the crown jewel of legitimacy the activists crave. The coming months will be very telling as to whose view of marriage will prevail in America — homosexual activists or matrimonial traditionalists.
During America’s first struggle over the definition of marriage, Congress was willing to take a bold stand. Legislation was passed designed to protect the traditional ideal of matrimony. The Supreme Court was also resolute in upholding those laws for the reasons they were enacted.
The current Congress and the Supreme Court are not the stalwart supporters of traditional marriage they were in the late 1800s. Legislators in Washington are avoiding a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which will define marriage as being only between one man and one woman) like it is laced with anthrax.
The Supreme Court, which has shown a penchant for legislating from the bench, has already established that sodomy is a “right” guaranteed in the constitution. It is very unlikely that traditional marriage will survive the scrutiny of the current court.
The first attempt to redefine marriage in America was soundly defeated. If we are to experience “déjà vu all over again,” the citizens of our nation will have to persuade their congressional delegation to support a federal amendment to the constitution.
Pick up the phone today and contact your senators as well as your representative. Ask them to support the proposed marriage amendment. You can find your congressional delegation’s phone number via the Internet at: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress.
“It ain’t over ’til it’s over,” is another famous Yogi Berra saying. Time is of the essence. However, there is still time to make a difference in the current struggle over the definition of marriage.
–30–
Kelly Boggs, whose column appears each Friday in Baptist Press, is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore.
