THE FORCE:

Man behind the marriage amendment (Karen S. Peterson, 4/12/04, USA TODAY)

Matt Daniels, 40, is a man in the middle of a growing maelstrom, a newly minted mover and shaker.

Most Americans have never heard of him, but his influence is helping drive one of the country's hottest issues. Daniels is the force behind the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages nationwide.

Passionate, dogged, savvy — physically imposing at 6-foot-4 — Daniels is a verbal whirlwind. The father of children ages 2 and 4 is a dogmatic, sometimes prickly force to be reckoned with, even when seated casually on a couch in his modest home in suburban Washington, D.C.

He is willing to change the Constitution to make his point that children should be raised in a home with a mom and a dad, a concept he says is being challenged in courtrooms around the country. Same-sex marriages, he says, are a "continuation of a path to destroying marriage." Only a "constitutional fix" can roll back the tide. His solution: His fledgling organization, the Alliance for Marriage, engineered a federal marriage amendment.

His concept resonates with many conservatives. President Bush has endorsed it. Legislation is pending in both houses of Congress, and among heavyweight legislators signing on as sponsors is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Daniels' views on family, he says, are based in large part on personal experience. He insists he wants to protect what he did not have himself: a dad who stuck around to raise him in a traditional family. [...]

Daniels insists he is not anti-gay. His alliance, he says, is "not organized around homosexuality. Its mission is to see that more kids are raised in a home with a married mother and father. And the legal status of marriage as between a man and a woman" is a linchpin.

"Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," Daniels says. [...]

Others disdain the proposal because they believe it does not go far enough: It would allow states to permit civil unions or other partnerships for same-sex couples.

"We are very concerned about protecting marriage between a man and a woman," says Jan LaRue of the Concerned Women for America, a public policy organization. States could be "free to create marriage in another name, a phony marriage. If we are going to the time and trouble of amending the Constitution, we prefer stronger language."

Daniels will not support stronger language.

"I am a political realist. I operate within the feasible. This is the only way to get an issue like this passed."

He stands to be his generation's Phyllis Schlafly.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 14, 2004 7:55 AM