H.J. Res 56, the "Federal Marriage Amendment."

[Pookie]

Quoting from the ACLU Website ...

Spurred by Canada's recent decision to legalize gay marriages, a coalition of right-wing religious groups has launched a campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, invalidate all state and local domestic partnership laws and nullify civil rights protections based on marital status. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) has advanced their goal by introducing H.J. Res 56, the "Federal Marriage Amendment."

In many states, unmarried persons -- including unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples and even unrelated clergy members -- have some of the same rights as married persons. The proposed amendment would eliminate these protections by nullifying domestic partnership laws in several states and in more than 100 counties, cities and towns. The proposal would also undermine state adoption, foster care and kinship care laws. If enacted, the amendment would even prohibit state and local governments from making their own decisions on providing benefits to their employees.

The Federal Marriage Amendment would wipe out every single law protecting millions of families no matter what their sexual orientation.

Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment!

This amendment would invalidate all legal protections for unmarried couples -- gay or straight.
By denying unmarried persons all legal protections for any of the "legal incidents" of marriage, the amendment would destroy a wide range of other rights that are important to the lives of unmarried persons. Those legal protections include state and local civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on "marital status," state laws protecting unmarried elderly couples who refrain from marrying in order to hold on to their pensions, and even state laws allowing a person, in the absence of a spouse, to oppose the autopsy of a close friend because of the deceased person's religious beliefs.

Amending the Constitution is an extreme act.
The proposed amendment would prohibit states from expanding their civil rights laws to protect gay and lesbian couples, or unmarried heterosexual couples, and their families. It would forbid states from serving their traditional role as testing grounds for stronger civil rights laws.

The Federal Marriage Amendment would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting, not harming, individual freedoms.
None of the current constitutional amendments restricts individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of families.

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=9977&c=101

The proposed amendment ...

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)

HJ 56 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2003
Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.56:

H.J.RES.56
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] (introduced 5/21/2003) Cosponsors: 25
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00056:

Discuss.

 

[april-wine]

Another reason to love living in Canada....


It doesn't surprise me at all....Fuck an intern in the oval office with a cigar, but NEVER allow same-sex partners to marry.....

 

[REDWAVE]

Once again, this illsutrates the total hypocrisy of the Republicans, who usually rant about "states' rights." But when state and local governments pass progressive laws, then the GOP wants to override them at the federal level!

Constitutional amendments are very difficult to enact. Every effort should be made to ensure this one's defeat.

 

[Queersetti]

Bush says he is not ready to support this amendment "yet".

Yet.

Translation, he wants to keep pretending he is a moderate, but is terrified to upset the extremists who have such disproportionate power within the Republican party.

 

[alltherage]

Bush says he is not ready to support this amendment "yet".

Yet.

Translation, he wants to keep pretending he is a moderate, but is terrified to upset the extremists who have such disproportionate power within the Republican party.

He is waiting to see the next poll and if the democrats will stick their necks out on this.

 

[Queersetti]

He is waiting to see the next poll and if the democrats will stick their necks out on this.

I think they will try to gay-bait the Democrats in any case, and if Howard Dean is the nominee, we will be subject to a horrific campaign of demonizing gays and lesbains next year.

 

[Etoile]

I think they will try to gay-bait the Democrats in any case, and if Howard Dean is the nominee, we will be subject to a horrific campaign of demonizing gays and lesbains next year.

Demonizing gays and who, Queersetti?

 

[Queersetti]

Demonizing gays and who, Queersetti?

You got me!

 

[REDWAVE]

Spineless Democrats

I think your analysis of Bush is correct, Queersetti. The other side of the coin is the Democrats are too spineless to take any position on this issue. They don't dare openly support gay marriage, but they don't dare oppose it, either, because either way, they'll alienate a large number of voters.

 

[wishbone96]

Forgive me for butting in but this proposed amendment is a no win deal for the Repubs in fact if this should make it to the floor vote alot of Repubs are going to cross over and side with the Dems-a lot of the key Senators have gay relatives and some gay children of their own. But if it does pass, this will be a potentially divisive issue in the 04 Election. Very polarizing, the likes which we haven't seen since the Civil Rights marches of the sixties. Count on it.

 

[Mischka]

Once again, this illsutrates the total hypocrisy of the Republicans, who usually rant about "states' rights." But when state and local governments pass progressive laws, then the GOP wants to override them at the federal level!

Constitutional amendments are very difficult to enact. Every effort should be made to ensure this one's defeat.

I agree completely. Both parties want a larger federal government in order to increase their power. They only differ on their stance on a few issues.

The amendment won't pass. It's like the annual flag burning amendments - they are only done for show for the constituents. No one expects them to get out of subcommittee (or the House), but the congressman gets to puff about taking a strong stand on a "patriotic" issue.

 

[sweet_little_cookie]

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

This site is an email form to write to your representative. Thought it would be helpful.

 

[Pookie]

bump

 

[Owlz]

The proposed amendment ...





Discuss.

Pookie, FWIW, I'm a straight owl & I have sent my opinion in opposition to the amendment to my Congresscritter & Senators.

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of like-minded members of the Lit. community.

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Owlz

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Decries New Effort to Amend the Constitution, Calls Proposed Marriage Amendment an Affront to Equality and Freedom

November 25, 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


WASHINGTON - Following on the heels of the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's ruling that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated due process and equal protection under the state constitution, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate today. The American Civil Liberties Union called the latest attempt to curtail liberties through altering the Constitution ill advised and mean spirited.

"The Constitution exists to protect rights - not diminish them," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The introduction of this Amendment shows just how far some in Congress are willing to go to deny people the right to some of life's most basic rights. Spurned by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, now they are moving to write discrimination into the Constitution."

The idea of amending the Constitution to define marriage is controversial: according to a recent ABC News poll, only 20 percent of Americans favor amending the Constitution to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry.

"The country has so many crucial issues facing it right now," Anders said. "It is baffling that some in the Senate would take the time to deny those who serve in the military, keep our communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff our hospitals, build our cities and pay taxes the right to marry simply because they are gay or lesbian."

Liberals and conservatives alike oppose the proposed amendment. Notably, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia and former Republican Senator Al Simpson of Wyoming object to the amendment on the grounds that it is not a matter for the federal government to decide; both Barr and Simpson agree that states should be able to determine marriage rules in their own borders.

Barr was the author and primary sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union between a man and woman only and stipulates that no state can force another to recognize its same-sex marriages. But, as he wrote in the Washington Post, that law was drafted for purposes of federal benefits, defined "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, and then allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. "As any good federalist should recognize," he said, "this law leaves states the appropriate amount of wiggle room to decide their own definitions of marriage or other similar social compacts, free of federal meddling."

Even Vice President Dick Cheney, when asked about officially recognized same-sex marriages, said in a debate during the 2000 election, "I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate." House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has also echoed the Vice President's stance on the issue.

"Just as with similar attempts to legislate discrimination, the amendment chips away at our freedom and liberty, and it should be defeated," Anders said. "Such discrimination has no place in America, and it certainly shouldn't be enshrined by writing it into our Constitution."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14470&c=101

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Says Federal Marriage Amendment is Constitutional Disaster; Will Obliterate All Rights for Same-Sex, Unmarried Couples

February 11, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - Responding to reports this morning that President Bush will soon formally announce support for a constitutional amendment to deny marriage rights to same-sex and unmarried couples, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the amendment supported by the White House is much broader than advertised and will not only ban civil unions but completely deny all government benefits to unmarried couples, be they gay or straight.

The ACLU also noted that the measure as written is fundamentally at odds with basic principles of federalism and state authority, which has made the amendment a wedge issue even among conservatives.

"Gays and lesbians are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. The serve as firefighters, police, doctors and professional athletes. They laugh at the same jokes and worry about car payments and credit card debt," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "To endorse this mean-spirited amendment with the hopes of denying them the same rights we all take for granted just isn’t very American."

The debate over denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples has been heating up in response to a Supreme Court decision prohibiting state anti-sodomy laws and a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples cannot be denied the same rights enjoyed by straight married couples.

These developments have prompted social conservatives to introduce a constitutional amendment that would deny all "legal incidents" of marriage - that is the vast bundle of civic benefits conferred by marriage -- to any unmarried couple, both same-sex and straight, and would preclude states from even recognizing so-called "civil unions," which can confer some state level benefits.

The proposed amendment, the ACLU said, would undermine state domestic partnership, adoption, foster care and kinship care laws. It would deny all unmarried couples - regardless of sex - all legal protections for their relationships by overriding any federal or state constitutional protections and federal, state and local laws. In many states, unmarried persons - including unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, and even unrelated clergy members - have the same rights as married persons to jointly adopt or provide foster care or kinship care.

The proposed amendment also lacks across the board support from conservatives. Former member of Congress Bob Barr (R-GA), a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, "does not support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. He prefers instead to leave the decision to the citizens of each state." Barr was the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows individual states to reject same-sex marriages performed by other states and has never been challenged successfully in court.

"The Constitution should not be altered unnecessarily, and certainly not to garner political points," Anders added. "This so-called modest measure is anything but that - if adopted, it would lead to a dismantling of the few protections that state and local governments have given to gay and lesbian Americans. It is the nuclear bomb of anti-gay attacks, forever wiping out all protections for same-sex couples."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14928&c=101

 

[Pookie]

Current cosponsors (112) of H.J.RES.56 in the US House of Representatives:

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [AL-4] Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2]
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [LA-5] Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [AL-6]
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 11/20/2003 [LA-6] Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [NC-10]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3] Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [TX-6] Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [CO-7]
Rep Blunt, Roy - 1/23/2004 [MO-7] Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [OH-8]
Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [AR-3] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1] Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 11/21/2003 [FL-5]
Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26] Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12]
Rep Burton, Dan - 11/20/2003 [IN-5] Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [CA-44]
Rep Cannon, Chris - 11/21/2003 [UT-3] Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7]
Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [TX-31] Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [IN-2]
Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [NC-6] Rep Cole, Tom - 2/10/2004 [OK-4]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8] Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [IL-8]
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [WY] Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [TX-7]
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [CA-50] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [TN-4] Rep Deal, Nathan - 11/20/2003 [GA-10]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4] Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4]
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 2/10/2004 [TN-2] Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [MO-8]
Rep Everett, Terry - 11/20/2003 [AL-2] Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [FL-24]
Rep Ferguson, Mike - 2/10/2004 [NJ-7] Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [AZ-6]
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [VA-4] Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [AZ-2]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [NJ-5] Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5] Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [VA-6]
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [MN-1] Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4]
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [PA-4] Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8]
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [AZ-5] Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [CA-2]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2] Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 11/21/2003 [MO-9]
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52] Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [IL-6]
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5]
Rep Janklow, William J. - 11/20/2003 [SD] Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3] Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [FL-8]
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6] Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [GA-1] Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2]
Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [KY-4] Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [IL-16]
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [MI-11] Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7]
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [CA-42] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [NC-9] Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 11/20/2003 [TX-19]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9] Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [NE-3]
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [NM-2] Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7] Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [PA-5]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [MS-3] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [CA-11] Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [KY-5]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3] Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [CA-46]
Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2] Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [VA-2]
Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [TX-32] Rep Shadegg, John B. - 11/20/2003 [AZ-3]
Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [PA-9] Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [NJ-4]
Rep Smith, Lamar - 11/21/2003 [TX-21] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3]
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [FL-6] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]
Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [OK-1] Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [CO-6]
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [LA-3] Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [MS-4]
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [KS-4] Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [PA-15]
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [OH-3] Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [LA-1]
Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [TN-3] Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [FL-15]
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [KY-1] Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [MS-1]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2] Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 2/10/2004 [VA-10]

 

[Pookie]

The US Senate version of the marriage amendment (S. J. RES. 26) ...

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)

SJ 26 IS

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 26
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 25, 2003
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c1087uxDGt::

 

[Pookie]

Status of S.J.RES.26 ...

S.J.RES.26
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Sen Allard, A. Wayne [CO] (introduced 11/25/2003) Cosponsors: 6
Latest Major Action: 11/25/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.j.res.00026:


Current cosponsors (6) of S.J.RES.26 in the US Senate:

Sen Brownback, Sam - 11/25/2003 [KS] Sen Bunning, Jim - 11/25/2003 [KY]
Sen Inhofe, Jim - 11/25/2003 [OK] Sen Miller, Zell - 2/9/2004 [GA]
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 11/25/2003 [AL] Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 12/9/2003 [AL]

 

[Vulnavia]

We have been discussing this amendment in one of my classes. One of my class mates, an uberconservative Bill O'Reilly clone contends that this amendment will open the door for polygamy. I am not seeing this leap of logic, so, if one of y'all could help me understand this, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Pookie]

We have been discussing this amendment in one of my classes. One of my class mates, an uberconservative Bill O'Reilly clone contends that this amendment will open the door for polygamy. I am not seeing this leap of logic, so, if one of y'all could help me understand this, I would greatly appreciate it.

There has been so much talk about same-sex marriage opening the door to everything from polygamy to incest. There were warnings like this from "conservatives" last summer when the US Supreme Court threw out the sodomy laws. Nothing of the sort has happened.

The amendment itself wants to place discrimination against homosexuals into the Constitution. All we're seeking is the same privilege that heterosexuals have, the privilege for two people to enter into a legal marriage. The proposed amendment if passed would eliminate that possibility, at least until that amendment could be repealed in the future.

In other words, your classmate is full of shit.

 

[Vulnavia]

There has been so much talk about same-sex marriage opening the door to everything from polygamy to incest. There were warnings like this from "conservatives" last summer when the US Supreme Court threw out the sodomy laws. Nothing of the sort has happened.

The amendment itself wants to place discrimination against homosexuals into the Constitution. All we're seeking is the same privilege that heterosexuals have, the privilege for two people to enter into a legal marriage. The proposed amendment if passed would eliminate that possibility, at least until that amendment could be repealed in the future.

In other words, your classmate is full of shit.

Well,ya know, that is kinda what I thought. I don't find anywhere in that proposed amendment where it legitimized polygamy. I can't even think of where this could be used as a legal precident for polygamy. I think I even told him to get off his gay bashing hysterical high horse but that was after class.

 

[Pookie]

Bump

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Calls Bush Support for Marriage Amendment Un-American; Proposal Would Write Discrimination Into the Constitution


February 24, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - Responding to President Bush’s official endorsement this morning of a constitutional amendment to deny marriage rights to same-sex and unmarried couples, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the amendment supported by the White House is much broader than advertised and would not only ban civil unions but could completely deny a broad range of government benefits to unmarried couples, be they gay or straight.

The ACLU also noted that the measure as written is fundamentally at odds with basic principles of federalism and state authority, which has made the amendment a wedge issue even among conservatives.

"President Bush's endorsement of this mean-spirited amendment shows that he is neither compassionate nor concerned with the rights of all Americans," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Gays and lesbians are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. They serve as firefighters, police, doctors and professional athletes. They laugh at the same jokes and worry about car payments and credit card debt. Amending the constitution to deny them the same rights we all take for granted just isn’t very American."

The debate over denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples has been heating up in response to a Supreme Court decision prohibiting state anti-sodomy laws and a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples cannot be denied the same rights enjoyed by straight married couples. The city of San Francisco recently began granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and has challenged California’s statutes that prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying.

These developments have prompted social conservatives to introduce a constitutional amendment that would deny all "legal incidents" of marriage - that is the vast bundle of civic benefits conferred by marriage -- to any unmarried couple, both same-sex and straight, and would preclude states from even recognizing so-called "civil unions," which can confer some state level benefits.

"We should not write discrimination into the Constitution to score political points," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "This so-called modest measure is anything but that -- if adopted, it could lead to a dismantling of the protections that state and local governments have given to gay and lesbian Americans. It is the nuclear bomb of anti-gay attacks, forever wiping out most of the protections for same-sex couples."

The proposed amendment, the ACLU said, could undermine state domestic partnership, adoption, foster care and kinship care laws. It could deny all unmarried couples -- regardless of sex -- all legal protections for their relationships by overriding any federal or state constitutional protections and federal, state and local laws. In many states, unmarried persons - including unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, and even unrelated clergy members -- have the same rights as married persons to jointly adopt or provide foster care or kinship care.

The proposed amendment also lacks across the board support from conservatives. Former member of Congress Bob Barr (R-GA), a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, "does not support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. He prefers instead to leave the decision to the citizens of each state." Barr was the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows individual states to reject same-sex marriages performed by other states and has never been challenged successfully in court.

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15055&c=101

 

[Bitchslapper]

I oppose an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage.