Constitutional Amendment Would Halt Homosexual Marriage

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 5/15/02 | Jason Pierce

[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.

 

[goldstategop]

I support the amendment. If our society continued to affirm marriage as it has always been understood to be a union of two people of the opposite sex then this amendment would be unnecessary. Unfortunately when you have rogue courts such as the Vermont Supreme Court, tradition can overthrown overnight with the stroke of a judge's pen. Hence the proposed amendment. Its not only not anti gay, it simply provides that the decision about the most solemn and profound events in human life be decided in accordance with society's wish to preserve marriage as the foundation of its existence. That's all it does. And hopefully judges will respect it instead of indulging in their personal whims from the bench.

[steve-b]

Instead of telling us how it can't be done, tell us how it CAN be done.

Get the government out of this religious institution, duh.

[AppyPappy]

That's not happening. duh.

[ArGee]

Regardless of how I or you or anyone else thinks about 'homosexual marriage' it has no place in the Constitution.

Were this nation governed by the Constitution I would agree with you. But since it is governed by the courts, the only way to trump the courts is to ammend the Constitution. Circular? You bet. But that's the mess we have found ourselves in ever since two of the branches of our government ignored their role to provide a check and balance on the third.

If you could get the courts to do what they are supposed to do, rather than writing legislation, then we wouldn't need Constitutional ammendments defining the limits of the Constitution to keep the courts from using the Constitution to justify their every whim.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

What a great idea! Let's give the nany state the authority to tell us whom we can and can not marry now! Everything will be swell when the nanny state controls every facet of our lives.

Current marriage laws include lots of protections and benefits provided by the state. You can decide that the state should get out of the business altogether if you want to. But for now the state is in the business. It therefore has every right to determine who should qualify.

When you're paying the bills, you get to decide who attends the party.

Shalom.

[mhking]

Regardless of how I or you or anyone else thinks about 'homosexual marriage' it has no place in the Constitution.

Without question. If anything, this issue is a states' rights question. We need to think VERY carefully before we start talking about amending the Constitution.

[Imagine]

I wonder which way Barney Frank will vote?

[valkyrieanne]

I don't agree with this amendment. It seems overly broad and vague, and would probably hurt some already-established state laws that have *nothing* to do with homosexuality or marriage. For instance, two unmarried people can have papers drawn up which allow each other to make medical decisions should one become incapacitated. My mother-in-law (almost 80) has done this with several of her friends because her friends have no living family, and they want to know a friend is there with them at the hospital seeing that their wishes are carried out.

The whole idea of what were formerly thought of as "benefits of marriage" extend everywhere throughout society now.

Besides, it's another blow to the already-damaged idea of states' rights to make their own marriage laws independent of the Federal gov't.

Those floating this amendment need to find another way to fight homosexuality - depriving everyone ELSE of their already-existing freedoms is NOT the way to do it.

[MWS]

Instead of telling us how it can't be done, tell us how it CAN be done.

I was in the car thinking... and I did come up with one way in which I would find it agreeable to constitutionally ban homosexual marriage. It is a tad backhanded, but it would be much better than directly banning homosexual marriage through Constitutional means.

How would I do it? Well, I suppose I would propose an amendment that read in the following way:

The right to marry, understood as an institution in which a single man and a single woman are united in holy matrimony, shall not be infringed.

This amendment would recognize the right of Americans to marry and yet would constitutionally define what marriage actually is. My only concern is that there would be people who would seek to distort this wording.

[PeteF]

If homosexuals wish to recieve benefits for their partnerships and want their partnerships to be equal to marriage, then let them work hard to pass laws for that.

Marriage and partnerships are two mutually exclusive terms and cannot be interchanged.

With moral relativism, chaos follows.

[Le-Roy]

   What will 'doom us' is people like you, who base their notions of social interaction on the model of a capricious, vindictive God as presented in 'the Good Book'; people who feel they have a right to dictate the private behavior of others that trumps the rights of those others to simply be left alone, because 'the Bible tells me so.'

   The rest of the world will breathe a huge, collective sigh of relief when you dinosaurs have finally become extinct.

[MWS]

What will 'doom us' is people like you, who base their notions of social interaction on the model of a capricious, vindictive God as presented in 'the Good Book'; people who feel they have a right to dictate the private behavior of others that trumps the rights of those others to simply be left alone, because 'the Bible tells me so.'

The rest of the world will breathe a huge, collective sigh of relief when you dinosaurs have finally become extinct.

Ad hominem attack: the last resort of a man with no ability to argue based on facts and reason.

[MarineDad]

There are simply no good reasons for an amendment such as this, nor is there any great likelihood that it will pass.

Protects the traditional values of this country.
Keeps children safe from the high probability of abuse.
Keeps children from the higher likelihood of practicing perversion.
Keeps unnecessary insurance costs down from AIDS related benefits for a totally self-inflicted preventable disease.
Protects survivorship for the true family members.
It keeps the courts and states from legitimizing a paraphilic pathology as a rational reasonable practice.
It will pass because America is fed up with those who practice perversion redefining marriage.
A narcissistic need to justify perversion is not a good reason for equal status.

Ok, that may all be just fine, but I ask you: Who do ya have to lobby to get married around here??

[Le-Roy]

Bite me. Anyone in this day and age who advocates controlling others' private, consensual behavior, due to the ramblings of religious dogma has already abdicated reason. I have no desire to engage in a theological circle-jerk, but I do get tired of seeing people consistently advocate socialist statism in the name of a 'free republic'.

[ArGee]

Gay people pay taxes too. Do they have any say in who attends the party?

If there were any gay people, they would indeed have say. Those with a mental disorder that causes them to be sexaully attracted to members of the same sex account for about 2% of the population. I'm not sure what percent of the taxes they pay. Their say is based on their population, though, not on their contribution to the tax base.

Regarding parties, if we really cared about these people, we would help them seek a normal lifestyle, not help them extend their disorder.

However, to your question - I was speaking of what right the state has to have any say at all in marriage. My comment is that the state pays for many of the benefits, therefore the state has a right to say. The state decides what to say by the representative democratic process. IIRC, very few mentally disturbed people have been shut out of the process.

Shalom.

[MWS]

Bite me. Anyone in this day and age who advocates controlling others' private, consensual behavior, due to the ramblings of religious dogma has already abdicated reason. I have no desire to engage in a theological circle-jerk, but I do get tired of seeing people consistently advocate socialist statism in the name of a 'free republic'.

It must feel so good to be 'enlightened' to the point where you can simply dismiss the views of others as "ramblings" while your personal opinions (and believe me, they are only opinions) hold FAR more validity...

[ArGee]

Anyone in this day and age who advocates controlling others' private, consensual behavior, due to the ramblings of religious dogma has already abdicated reason.

Who is talking about controlling private, consensual behavior?

If you're going to act like an idiot, it least discuss the topic at hand.

Shalom.

[BlueLancer]

"If you're going to act like an idiot, it least discuss the topic at hand."

Ah, but if he did that, wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

[alnick]

What it does is clarify rights that the founding fathers could not have possibly anticipated would be assaulted so far into the future.