The Alliance for Marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm

[Antoninus]

Poll Finds that Most Americans Support a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Marriage



Communities of Color Lead the Way In Support for a Federal Marriage Amendment on a Day When Marriage Goes On Trial in the Massachusetts Courts

WASHINGTON, DC — A national Wirthlin poll released March 4, 2003 by the Alliance for Marriage shows that a majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman from lawsuits being filed by activist lawyers in courts across the country.

The release of these findings comes on a day when the state supreme court of Massachusetts will hear oral argument in Goodridge v. MA Dept of Health — a case that activist lawyers intend to use as a foundation for "constitutional" challenges to all of America's marriage laws. For example, the Boston Bar Association has openly called for "federal constitutional claims" to be brought against all state and federal marriage laws in the aftermath of a victory in this case.







One of the most important findings of this new Wirthlin poll is that overwhelming numbers of Hispanics (63%) and African-Americans (62%) support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from such lawsuits. This is ironic since most of the legal arguments in the Goodridge case — and similar suits filed in New Jersey and Indiana — are based upon comparisons between the marriage laws of contemporary America and racist laws enforcing legal segregation and discrimination in the South.

In addition, working class and low income Americans (63%) are also among some of the strongest supporters of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

The findings of this national Wirthlin poll have a margin of error of 3.1% and are based upon a survey of 1,000 American adults conducted last month by Wirthlin Worldwide.

The Alliance for Marriage is a non-partisan, multicultural coalition whose Board of Advisors includes Rev. Walter Fauntroy — the former DC Delegate who organized the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. -- as well as other civil rights and religious leaders, and national legal experts.

[Antoninus]

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

Let's get moving on this, people!

[Antoninus]

Oops. Screwed up the link above. It's here:

[Antoninus]

I mean here (sorry!):

The Alliance for Marriage

[jwalsh07]

Here is one possible answer to the question you posed about minorities and marriage.

[Mo1]

FYI

[steplock]

Click here for:

Alliance for Marriage

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting this! We really do need to get on board this! Enough is enough!

[PhiKapMom]

LOL!!! You beat me -- I was just doing a ping!

[Paleo Conservative]

Another thing that is needed is an ammendment allowing for the states to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions. I think that if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote to overturn a Supreme Court decision within two years of its being issued, that Supreme Court decesion should be null and void.

[templar]

It's a noble effort, but I have serious doubts it will succeed. I think enthusiasm for it will got the way support for a flag burning ammendment or the ERA did. A slow loss of momentum till it becomes non viable.

[AntiGuv]

Thanks for posting this! We really do need to get on board this! Enough is enough!

I neither support nor oppose the Amendment. Whether or not the Congress passes and the States ratify this Amendment is fine by me. I'm just intrigued to find out the dimensions & outcome of this historic cultural battle.

[AntiGuv]

Another thing that is needed is an ammendment allowing for the states to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions.

Umm.. That's precisely what Amendments are for..

[templar]

I think that if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote to overturn a Supreme Court decision within two years of its being issued, that Supreme Court decesion should be null and void.

That's basically what a constitutional ammendment does now. The only way the States have of acting in unison on an issue is through Congress (Senate represents the States, House of Representatives represents the people).

[Polycarp]

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

Winston Churchill (The Gathering Storm, p348):

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[AntiGuv]

If this makes it out of the Congress, I've counted exactly 38 states [the required minimum] that I think likely to ratify. The key hurdle will be the U.S. House & Senate.

[Antoninus]

Ping....

Invoking the "Appeal to ping list" for those of you with them.

[Antoninus]

It's a noble effort, but I have serious doubts it will succeed. I think enthusiasm for it will got the way support for a flag burning ammendment or the ERA did. A slow loss of momentum till it becomes non viable.

Perhaps. But I'm one of those annoying optimists.....

[Antoninus]

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Well done. I always loved this quote.

[templar]

If this makes it out of the Congress, I've counted exactly 38 states [the required minimum] that I think likely to ratify.

It'll be one H#LL of a fight. I think it'll get real, real partisan. How many of those States that are likely are Demon controlled?

[Paleo Conservative]

t's basically what a constitutional ammendment does now

Except that I would omit the involvement of the House and Senate; they are part of the problem. Quite a number of Supreme Court decisions are made favoring concentration of power in Washington DC and against the states. If the Supreme Court knew that it's decisions could be overturned by the collective actions of a supermajority of the states, there would be a greater incentive for moderation in the decisions of the Supreme Court.

[PhiKapMom]

I'm just intrigued to find out the dimensions & outcome of this historic cultural battle.

That makes two of us. I am wondering if some of the people who have been part of the look-the-other way group are going to wake up finally.

When the Clintons came to power, the Gay (I hate the fact they use that word) movement started gaining strength. I think Schumers comments at the Gay Parade reflect the thinking of the very liberal part of the RAT Party.

Just read at NRSC that John Breaux may retire -- guess he is tired of what has happened to the Senate Democrats run by Hillary. I can remember when I disagreed with the DemocRATs (usually have), but I still respected some of them especially from the South. Former Senator David Boren is President of The University of Oklahoma but is a support of President Bush and an advisor on Intelligence and Foreign Affairs to him. He supported Clarence Thomas for the SCOTUS too! Those types don't seem to exist in the Clinton DemocRAT Party anymore!

After seeing Schumer's comments today at the Parade, I had to wonder how far left the RATs have gone!

[Coleus]

`

[Antoninus]

The key hurdle will be the U.S. House & Senate.

Well, if the poll numbers don't change (a pretty big "if", I know), I suspect the vote whores in Congress will have serious trouble voting against this. Especially in districts where the loss of even 5-10% of the Black or Hispanic vote could swing things....

[Polycarp]

Unfortunately, we have finally entered the latter stage he describes here. But I'm going to die fighting.

[PhiKapMom]

Oklahoma has a RAT Governor but two of the most conservative Senators in the Senate -- Nickles and Inhofe. Believe even the DemocRATs in Oklahoma would support this amendment because they are not very liberal except for a few! A lot of Southern Baptist in the State and if the Legislature didn't pass it, they would be gone!

[Antoninus]

If the Supreme Court knew that it's decisions could be overturned by the collective actions of a supermajority of the states, there would be a greater incentive for moderation in the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Another major benefit. This is our only check on a rogue Supreme Court. Why not use it and teach them to knock of the extra-legal judicial activism?

[PhiKapMom]

Glad to meet a fellow half glass full person! You might use the word eternal optimist! If you believe in something, you need to go for it and don't quit just because the glass half empty folks say it won't work!

In 2000, if the naysayers had their way saying we were going to lose to Gore in Florida, then we might have. Instead we had a group of people that believed we were right and didn't quit fighting.

[Mo1]

It'll be one H#LL of a fight. I think it'll get real, real partisan.

I agree .. Something everyone needs to be prepared for

[Paleo Conservative]

"If this makes it out of the Congress, I've counted exactly 38 states [the required minimum] that I think likely to ratify."

It'll be one H#LL of a fight. I think it'll get real, real partisan. How many of those States that are likely are Demon controlled?

Just because a legislature has a DemocRAT majority doesn't mean it will support such radical measures as "gay marriage". I would suspect voting against a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, could be bad for one's political carrer in most places, even for DemocRATS.

[templar]

xcept that I would omit the involvement of the House and Senate; they are part of the problem

This would require some other binding governmental forum. How would you ever get 38 States, acting independantly of each other, the pass exactly the same legislation? Remember, if the legislation wasn't exactly the same, they would not be passing for the same legislation.

Proposing a change that would put Congress out of the picture in the States collective actions would fundamentally change our way of government. I doubt the change would be for the better (it would take, in effect, a new Constitutional convention)

[PhiKapMom]

I pinged as soon as I saw the article! We need to make our voices heard!

[Mo1]

Those types don't seem to exist in the Clinton DemocRAT Party anymore!

Exactly .. and that is why I think this is going to get real nasty

[Coleus]

Don't count on it.

Bush and the Republicans also promised a Human Life Amendment, I'm still waiting...

http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm

[longtermmemmory]

Horray, bump bump and more bump.

This needs some traction. How do we get involved? Petitions?

[templar]

If you believe in something, you need to go for it and don't quit just because the glass half empty folks say it won't work!

I prefer to think in terms of a half full gas tank. If you need 3/4 of a tank full to get where you're going you'd better make some plans for the other 1/4 if you start out with only half a tank. Optimism by itself won't fill the tank, money and filling stations are going to be required.

[longtermmemmory]

There are 36 states with DOMA's you only need two more to get the ammendment approved.

I say go for it.

[AntiGuv]

The Dems control both chambers in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

They control one chamber in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington.

Of the states which I have as unlikely to ratify, the Dems control both chambers in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

They control one chamber in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks PKM.

Bump!

[Skywalk]

Hey and maybe we can have Amendments repealing the 2nd Amendment and portions of the 9th(or all of it) and 4th, because, hey, we have to stand up to the Feds!

[templar]

RNC's server won't respond. An omen maybe?

[Paleo Conservative]

This would require some other binding governmental forum. How would you ever get 38 States, acting independantly of each other, the pass exactly the same legislation?

I could imagine the state's attorneys general could coordinate such a thing. Hell, we have the internet. I think the idea that coordination has to occur from the top down is obsolete. Just look at state "right to carry laws." Quite a number of states have recipricol agreements between each other to recognize permits to carry concealed firearms issued by other pariticpating states. This coordination was acheived in spite of a hostile administration in Washington that was trying to make firearm laws more restrictive at the federal level.

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with you on nasty 100%! Makes me shudder to think what the next 16 months are going to be like. There is nothing honorable about the Clinton DemocRAT Party -- absolutely nothing!

[AntiGuv]

Well, if the poll numbers don't change (a pretty big "if", I know), I suspect the vote whores in Congress will have serious trouble voting against this.

The highest number of senators I can come up with that I expect may oppose this amendment is 26, well short of the necessary 34 to defeat. I haven't done a break-down on the House (nor do I intend to) but I would be quite shocked if they can come up with anywhere near 145 congress critters to oppose this.

IMHO, the Amendment appears quite likely to secure ratification from both the Congress & the States. It'll be one hell of a battle, though, as templar noted..

[PhiKapMom]

That is why you start with optimism and throw in hard work to achieve your goal -- don't quit when there are roadblocks thrown in your way but keep on pushing ahead!

[longtermmemmory]

36 states have DOMA's either by legislature or referendum. Politicians would be unwise to vote against this. It would be like drinking french wine.

[Antoninus]

Pinging to the residents of the religion forum ghetto: Come ye forth! (Apologies if this is a duplicate ping).

Here's a way to have a real positive impact on the culture. What say you?

[AntiGuv]

Hey and maybe we can have Amendments repealing the 2nd Amendment and portions of the 9th(or all of it) and 4th, because, hey, we have to stand up to the Feds!

In the long run, this Federal Marriage Amendment would near certainly end up in that same little corner of infamy where the Prohibition Amendment lurks these days. The only real question is how long it would stick around.

[templar]

I could imagine the state's attorneys general could coordinate such a thing. Hell, we have the internet.

You might want to see what's been waiting in the wings for an opportunity like this to come along. Major changes to our government need to be approached very. very cautiously, the enemy is hihtly organized and has plans for every contingency. One mistake and we have a new government.