Posted on 01/23/2004 3:54:13 PM PST by witnesstothefall
NEW YORK -- Despite laws already barring gay marriage, legislators in at least nine states are pushing for new, more sweeping measures in hopes of preventing any ripple effect from laws and court rulings elsewhere.
In most cases, Republican lawmakers in states with existing Defense of Marriage acts seek to go a step further by amending their constitutions to specify that marriage must be heterosexual. State Rep. Bill Graves, a bill sponsor in Oklahoma, wants to stipulate that same-sex unions are "repugnant to the public policy" of the state.
Supporters say the constitutional amendments are necessary to ensure that legislation and court judgments in other states - such as the recent ruling in favor of gay marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - will not compel recognition of same-sex unions in their own states.
Gay-rights activists see the amendment campaign as vindictive and partisan.
"This is a political attack, motivated by fierce anti-gay opponents who want to slam us again and again," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "They are not just looking to suppress gay marriage, but to deny gay people any measure of legal protection and human dignity."
In all, 37 states and the federal government have Defense of Marriage acts that say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Ohio may soon become the 38th state; its Senate approved one of the most far-reaching gay marriage bans in the country Wednesday, making only minor changes in a House-passed version. Going further than the laws in most states, Ohio's bill also would prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether gay or straight.
Proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan; one is expected soon in Alabama. An Idaho Republican, Rep. Henry Kulczyk, plans to introduce a similar measure there, to the dismay of some Democrats.
"We've got enough contention to deal with rather than going through a litmus test for the reactionary right," said Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett.
Massachusetts does not have a Defense of Marriage Act, but the high court ruling there has sparked vociferous public debate and an anti-gay marriage amendment has been proposed by its lawmakers as well.
In Virginia, the House of Delegates overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday urging Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual. The resolution now goes to the Senate.
"We don't want to be left in the lurch where the measure we passed overwhelmingly several years ago is stricken down by the high court of this country," said the resolution's sponsor, Robert McConnell, referring to Virginia's existing Defense of Marriage Act.
Georgia's proposed amendment - which could go on the November general election ballot - was presented Wednesday in the state Senate. Any change to traditional marriage "begins to tear at the foundations of our institutions," said Senate Republican Leader Bill Stephens.
Gay-rights advocates and some Democratic lawmakers denounced the measure as politically motivated.
"The purpose of amendments is to create protections for the citizens of Georgia, not to write discrimination into the constitution," said Allen Thornell, executive director of the gay-rights group Georgia Equality.
The American Friends Service Committee - a Quaker social justice group - this week joined the campaign against the proposed amendment in Michigan. In Kentucky, about 30 gay-rights supporters protested Wednesday at the state Capitol, many carrying signs saying, "Anti-marriage amendments hurt my family."
Two Kentucky legislators who oppose the amendment are sponsoring a counterproposal that would outlaw discrimination against gays.
"There's no excuse why fairness cannot be passed," said Democratic Rep. Kathy Stein. "Other than the fact that, unfortunately, a number of my colleagues ... are afraid to think about it."
Pending final resolution of the Massachusetts court ruling, no state allows full-fledged same-sex marriages. Vermont recognizes marriage-like civil unions, while California, Hawaii and New Jersey grant various rights to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.
Legislators in Maryland and Colorado hope to get civil union legislation considered by their colleagues this session.
In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President George W. Bush indicated he would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. He suggested this option would be needed only if "activist judges" overruled existing federal and state Defense of Marriage laws.
If Ohio enacts its pending Defense of Marriage act as expected, only 12 states, including Massachusetts, would be without one.
I'm almost ready for the next civil war.
Yes they would in the sense that it would impede their goal in keeping us on our path to anarchy.
What I find truly amazing is that here you have a view that is clearly held by a vast majority of the American people, yet there is little if any hint of it from the media, which is too busy trying to cast gay rights into the mold of the civil rights struggle
Yes. The Democrats believe marriage between a man and a woman is an outdated and heterosexist institution.
....Clark and Dean both support the homosexuals and even posed for the cover of Advocate magazine!!!!
What I find truly amazing is that here you have a view that is clearly held by a vast majority of the American people, yet there is little if any hint of it from the media, which is too busy trying to cast gay rights into the mold of the civil rights struggle
....not one newspaper connected the dot's to the Dean and Gephart loss because of their snuggling up to the homosexuals!
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.