Both legislators also believe that there will be progress as to passage
of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Bill although this bill
has not been reported out of committee. It would grant to homosexual
partners the same privileges under law that a married couple currently
enjoys. Baldwin did indicate that repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell"
legislation would be difficult because many Members who originally voted
for it remain in Congress. The measure passed the Congress soon after
Clinton took office in 1993. Smith said he voted for DOMA because he
didn't want Federal judges "to impose it on other parts of the
jurisdiction." Smith said if government starts redefining marriage "it
could have detrimental consequences for some groups." He said tinkering
with the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman would
have implications that "are much broader than the gay and lesbian
community."
The point is this. The homosexual community has an agenda. It plans to
hit the ground running. The pro-family community is mostly on the
defensive. The homosexual community at this stage very much reminds me
of the emerging pro-family community in 1980. That year, Senator Paul
Laxalt (R-NV), Ronald Reagan's closest friend in the Congress,
introduced the Family Protection Act. It was an agenda carefully
assembled by the family community. It enabled that community to hit the
ground running when Ronald Reagan became President. The homosexual
community, which had been showing its muscle in the 1970s, became
defensive after 1980. The situation today is nearly the mirror-image of
the situation more than a quarter of a century ago. In policy politics
the pendulum swings back and forth. Yesterday it was the pro-family
community which was on the offensive, the homosexual community on the
defensive. Now, because the homosexual community believes the number of
Members sympathetic to its agenda will greatly increase, it is on the
offensive. While elements of the Family Protection Act were enacted into
law, the pro-family community has not been on the offensive for some
years. Hence, there has been a stand-off. The homosexual community did
not have the votes to accomplish its agenda but it did have the votes to
thwart some pro-family measures. Only the pro-life issue advanced on the
margins these past few years.
As Jack Kemp always reminded us, in this business you are either on
offense or defense. Unless and until the pro-family groups again are
able to go on the offense they are likely to loose ground. As
unfortunate as that may be, it is reality. To return to the offense the
pro-family forces would need more Members of Congress. At this stage it
appears they will be dealing next year with fewer, not more, in sympathy
with their agenda. More Members, it seems to me, must be that
community's first priority if it expects to be successful.