Speakers at the government's Sanctity of Marriage lecture series:
Posted on 05/16/2002 4:36:11 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The Federal Marriage Amendment, which would alter the U.S. Constitution to redefine marriage as a union of only a man and a woman, was introduced on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday.
The text of the amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the 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."
"Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose," said Matt Daniels, Executive Director of the Alliance for Marriage. "But they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society."
According to the Alliance for Marriage, the amendment's principle backer, the first sentence of the amendment prohibits legislatures from using marriage to describe same-sex unions, and courts from recognizing any marriage between members of the same sex.
The second sentence ensures that "the democratic process decides the allocation of benefits and privileges traditionally associated with marriage," not the courts.
Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.), the primary sponsor of the amendment, said he is confident the measure will gain the overwhelming support of the American public.
"I am convinced that our nation will need to take the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution in order to preserve the legal status of marriage and the family for future generations," Shows said. "The Federal Marriage Amendment embodies some of the most deeply held values of the American people.
"These values transcend political boundaries in the same way that they transcend all racial, cultural and religious lines," Shows said.
The introduction of the amendment drew immediate criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union.
"With only a few exceptions, most of the anti-gay attacks in Congress are the legal equivalent of sticks and stones," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.
However, according to Anders, "This amendment is the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb."
"It will wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples," Anders said.
Anders added that the amendment would limit the power of states, counties, cities and towns to create their own laws on domestic partnership issues.
"The extreme measure would even prohibit state and local governments from making their own decisions on providing benefits to their employees," he said.
Shows maintained the amendment would only take power from the federal and state Supreme Courts, and give power to local municipalities to decide on issues of domestic partnerships.
"The Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable and measured response to an ongoing and accelerating abuse of power by the American courts," Shows said. "It leaves to the people, through their elected state legislatures - not the un-elected courts -- the right to determine who can receive benefits traditionally associated with marriage."
George Getz, spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said Congress has no business amending the Constitution
"The impulse of Democrats and Republicans to amend the Constitution so promiscuously poses a greater threat to Americans' freedom than a couple of gay people getting married," Getz said. "Besides, isn't listening to Capitol Hill politicians lecture us about the sanctity of marriage a bit like listening to Mike Tyson praise the virtue of chivalry? These people aren't exactly moral paragons."
Cosponsoring the bill are Reps. Dave Phelps (D-Ill.), Ralph Hall (D-Tex.), Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) and Chris Cannon (R-Utah).
E-mail a news tip to Jason Pierce.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Spoken like a true immoral relativist.
Regardless of how I or you or anyone else thinks about 'homosexual marriage' it has no place in the Constitution.
Funny, I thought that that was one of the few things that the Congress was specifically allowed to do by the Constitution.
(Searching)
Yup, I was right ... Article V specifically gives Congress the right to amend the Constitution.
Leave it to the Looney Libs to take a stand like that.
OK...I used to be an LP member a few years ago, but...what the heck has George been smoking? I'm guessing whatever it is is more potent than marijuana.
I mean...he can certainly disagree with the reason they're amending it, but to say they have no business doing so is absurd. If not Congress, who has the right to amend? The ACLU?
Speakers at the government's Sanctity of Marriage lecture series:
You have every right to get married, pretending an anus is a vagina doesn’t count.
… interferes with the authority of the States.
Yep, those pesky amendments tend to do that.
… harms non-traditional families AND THEIR CHILDREN.
You mean like two lesbian sisters and horse their tragic adopted child calls Daddy?
There are simply no good reasons for an amendment such as this, nor is there any great likelihood that it will pass.
Instead of telling us how it can't be done, tell us how it CAN be done.
So if madg wishes to argue about amendments interfering with states' rights, I would counter that states - like California, for instance - are already engaging in legislative policies determined to force other states to comply with their laws. We have certainly seen evidence of this practice reported in this forum.
Lest we forget, we have a system that encourages majority rule. Certainly, we do not want a handful of states making demands on the silent majority.
All that being said, it is extremely difficult to pass an amendment to the Constitution. After all, it has to get through Tom Daschle...
Well said, to me, this is just another knee-jerk fad designed to expand the police state.
If the matter is to be addressed, it would be far better to address it through conventional legislation than by amending a document that is supposed to recognize rights. I can also see this tactic as eventually backfiring, with homosexuals seeking to strike the amendment and instead move to add an amendment granting them a right to marry (now THAT would be bad). We would be better off looking for ways to prevent them from doing that than raising sympathy through a Constitutional ban.
If they get sympathy raised for their cause and they eventually have the amendment stricken, it could also strengthen a dangerous precident- that Constitutional amendments can be revoked. With one revocation (prohibition) we can call it a fluke; with two it becomes a dangerous threat. It would only be a matter of time before other amendments are revoked.
I think it is better to leave that hornet's nest alone and deal with this by other methods. I don't claim to have the answers, but I can see that this is not the best way of going about the matter.
A regular Federal law is easier to pass than a constitutional amendment. Only after such a law passed and were then overturned is it time to talk about amending the constitution.
You are correct- I should have been more clear. Thos are all social issues to some degree. However, slavery and women's sufferage also deal with the recognition of rights- that no man or woman should serve as a slave of another, and that women should have as much a right to vote as any man. I believe an amendment could be made banning abortion as well, as that would deal with the recognition of the right of an unborn child to have life and be born. I do not believe that an amendment can be made in the case of the death penalty- it is not an inherent right not to be put to death for serious crimes.
What I oppose is making Constitutional amendments for matters that do not recognize natural rights (remember, the Constitution does not GRANT rights, only recognizes them). I do not believe that Amendments should be used for any other purpose.
(By the way, I do not believe that there is a natural right for homosexual marriage- marriage is by nature the union of a man and a woman.).
You are missing the point. It a sad commentary on how far our nation has fallen into the sewer of moral depravity that such an amendment is even being considered.
What you, I, and others think about homosexual marriage is centrally relevant and vitally important. Too few still believe it is an abomination, and too many now believe it should be tolerated. It is that mindset--not the existence of any particular constitutional amendment--that will doom us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.