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.

[First Amendment]

I'm with you there. If more people would worry about keeping their government in check rather than begging the government to keep the guy next door in check, this country would be a lot better off. This hysterical desperation is almost embarrassing to watch.

What do you call laws mandating that children K-12 be forced to learn homopropaganda in school? How about laws forcing businesses to hire cross dressers? How about laws forcing foster parents to attend homosexual sensitivity training programs? These are just a few of the laws either on the books or soon to be in the great state of California. Do you call this government being in check or not?

[kms61]

I have nieces and nephews. Your point being?

[First Amendment]

My point being that children are being sexualized at younger and younger ages by movies, TV, schools, and therefore their peers, even if not at home. The homosexual agenda has long planned - since about '72 or '73 to abolish the age of consent. They want young partners.

[Sandy]

What do you call laws mandating that children K-12 be forced to learn homopropaganda in school?...

I call it irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

[longtermmemmory]

It is very relevant. GLSEN and all forms of new acronyms pop up daily seeking to indoctrinate children into the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals want to get to that 4 or 5 year old who thinks the opposite sex is still "icky with cooties". There has to be a point where people of conscience say ENOUGH. Remember the clause about domestic treats. Threats to the children of this nation definitly qualifies.

Homosexuality is a behavior it is not a gender or race. An ammendment will clarify this to the leftists.

[longtermmemmory]

treats = threats

opps , typo.

[kms61]

None of which has anything to do with decriminalizing private consensual behavior between adults.

I'm clearly not going to convince you that I'm right, nor am I trying to. And you're not going to convince me that your postion is the correct one.

I've been staying off these threads because nobody ever changes anyone's minds, and they seem primarily to be havens for people who like to argue. However, judging from the number of threads and comments on FR over the last four days, many people here think this is THE central issue facing our country....with so many imminent challenges out there, that just baffles me.

[First Amendment]

What do you call laws mandating that children K-12 be forced to learn homopropaganda in school?...

I call it irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

And I'd call your non-answer a cop-out.

[longtermmemmory]

Since there are so many threats, it is a good thing there are so many conservatives to spread the work around and support each other. It obvious the 2.78% of the homosexuals do that. The are trying to infect the republican party with their parody of lincoln club and have already made the democrat party the party of perverts.

[envision]

I agree:

"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." -- #50, templar

The Constitution is not an appropriate bulletin board for expressing outrage, especially these days. No matter how outrageous the thing you are steamed about.

We see the huge amount of nonsense loose all over the place. Court decisions, Federal government legislation and executive actions, bloated government, wacked-out people doing nutty things, etc.

What restrains (or used to restrain) these justices, congressmen, executives, lawyers? Things weren't this crazy, even 30 years ago. Tradition, fear of peer's disapproval, perhaps here and there wisdom and good sense were the restraints.

When those restraints begin to crumble, we loose a ring of defense around our liberties.

Marriage didn't need special constitutional protections 30 years ago, it was fine then. And: our Constitution hasn't changed. So something else must be wrong.

Therefore, devising shrewd "improvements," "reforms" to tack on to the Constitution is the wrong approach.

The only hands we could even begin to entrust to review and alter the Constitution must only be individuals as wise as those who debated and prepared the document originally.

The sorry bunch of officials and high political operators on the public scene today don't measure up. They can't even keep the country running as sanely as when they received it from yesteryear's leaders. They couldn't be trusted to "fix" the Constitution, they would damage it accidentally or by design, instead.

Were there some serious flaw in the Constitution, it likely would have turned up long before now, after 200 years of operating experience. Even if there were a serious flaw, we're safer to limp along with the Constitution we have than to trust the current crop of "leaders" to fiddle around with it.

It would be better to wait (a generation, if ever) until a new group of genuinely capable statesmen arrive before we dare to tamper with the Constitution.

[longtermmemmory]

when? When do we answer the call to do right? Kill this now and there may be no next generation. Remeber what hitler said, "who cares what you think, I have your children." This is about taking our children. In another generation these indoctrinated children will be lost and out duty to stop these degenerates will be gone. You will be in a re-education (diversity sensitivity) training school. Big brother loves you.

[AFPhys]

...on which our representatives should spend their time, effort, and political capitol.

The amount of time, effort, and political capital which has to be spent on passing this is close to nil. It is going to be a total no-brainer for most politicians who wish to remain in office. It will not detract at all from other business.

[AFPhys]

Agreed. I have always found that "queer" is a particularly descriptive substitute for the word "homosexual" should a different word be needed.

[DAnconia55]

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

If the polling data is accurate, no.
And it would be my personal desire to not have gays call their 'arrangements' marriage.

I'm VERY concerned with the idea that the Federal government should define and regulate marriage. Regulate is what they do, after all...

Ideally, the gays would back off and choose another name.

Depending on the wording, and given IRONCLAD assurances there would be no interpretations allowing for the expansion of government law, or the ability of the courts to make new law from the Amendment, (For example Federal conditions for a Federal marriage license - did you consider that?) then I might vote for it.

[DAnconia55]

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

Hmmm.. point. Abortion is a far more serious issue than this is.

[envision]

My view is still: The Constitution isn't broke. Don't mess with it.

Whatever social or legal problems arise, they are unlikely from defects in the Constitution. Such issues must be addressed, win or loose, below the level of the constitution.

It is too dangerous, the Constitution is too precious and our republic too fragile. Too easily, this plays into the hands of the enemies of liberty.

For instance, were a constitutional amendment proposed--not ratified, just proposed and sent out for ratification--by conservatives, then soon afterward crackpot liberals would be whining it wasn't fair: since the conservatives got an amendment, "fairness" demands the liberals get one too. And people would be swayed by this "reasoning."

[davidosborne]

Thanks for the ping... passing it on... I have been on Military duty for the past 2 weeks and somewhat out of touch with the news....

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.

[GatekeeperBookman]

No, this will grow-unlike flag burning & other such 'causes' we are all faced with this problem. The worst is to see homosexuals with children. I have & the kids are thoroughly screwed up-lost & disturbed. A disgusting situation. Like watching an execution of the innocent.

I am glad the law suit is happening-we need a series of cathartic events in this society-wake up calls by another name.

[E.G.C.]

Good Morning, David. How's it going? BTTT!!!!!