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.

[Desdemona]

The most distressing aspect of this fight is that we're talking at all about a constitutional amendment. It should never have come to this.

But since that seems to be the most effective answer - at least in the short term -

are there any signs that either Frist or Santorum will take the lead or will someone else have to step forward?

is there dialogue between Alliance for Marriage, Defending the Family and other grass roots organizations committed to this cause?

Are there good, clear speakers on the subject, people who think on their feet, available to lobby and speak at congressional and legislative hearings?

Are the talking points down to sound bites?

I hate to be practical about it, but as noble as this effort is, without a little coordination and planning, it's going to be a rough go.

[templar]

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

Me too, in a way. Sudden changes, especially large ones, are recognized when the happen. Slow and gradual changes are only recognized after the fact; And each new change needs to be diferentialy larger than the last to be recognized at all.

[davidosborne]

Good Morning... Great to be back in the "Real World" I have just completed phase 1 of Drill Sergeant School... 6 more months to go... Graduation will be in January at Fort Jackson.. All FReepers are invited!!...

[PhiKapMom]

You gave me my laugh for the morning!

[E.G.C.]

Congradulations, David. I wish you all the best.:-D

[MeekOneGOP]

Ban Perversion !!
barf alert !

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)

[eastsider]

I'm all for an amendment. I think we need it, and I would vote for it. But the link you gave isn't very helpful as far as giving concrete steps we each can take to get the amendment out to the states for a vote.

[Coleus]

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


42,638,005 abortions (babies killed) since 1973 but whose counting?

[Kahonek]

"Anyone still think this is a losing issue?"

Yup. Constitutional ammendments aren't passed or ratified by polls or the people. They're passed and ratified by legislators. Therein lies the rub.

[Antoninus]

I can't believe how many people here are sounding like nevil chamberlan. Evil must be fought on all fronts.

Honestly, I think that a lot of the people who are against this are actually looking forward to complete moral anarchy in this country....

[Antoninus]

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.

You're wrong. We, the people, have one check on the excesses of a rogue Supreme Court legislating from the bench. It is the Constitutional Amendment. I don't take the notion lightly at all. Personally, I think that you're underestimating the seriousness of the recent decision affirming the "right to sodomy." Either that, or your perfectly happy to see our cultural patrimony that allowed us to found and maintain this republic through so many years and trials, be sacrificed on the altar of the sexual "freedom" big lie.

Whatever your motivations, I find your reasoning utterly specious.

[Antoninus]

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.

No, the Constitution hasn't changed. However, those interpreting the Constitution in the judiciary have. They now view it as a "living" document which allows them to find all kinds of novel new "rights" embedded within it that are nowhere to be found.

In 1963, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that "obscenity" (read, pornography) was protected by the First Amendment. This ruling was consistent with the previous 180 years of U.S. legal precedent. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled exactly the opposite. Tell me, what changed?

In this recent "right to sodomy" decision, the Court managed to completely contradict a decision on a similar case that was rendered 17 years ago. Again I ask you, what changed?

If you don't recognize that JUDICIAL FIAT ACTIVISM is the root cause of the cultural malaise in which we find ourselves, you're out of touch with reality.

[Antoninus]

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.

I think most of those squealing like stuck pigs on this thread already know this in their guts. That's why they're so keen on strangling our enthusiasm in the cradle. Honestly, their specious arguments are just getting me more cranked up!

[Antoninus]

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.

No provisions for a "Federal marriage licence" are necessary at all. The text of the amendment should be simple and straight forward. Four or five sentences max.

We're not trying to do anything but set up a bulwark so that the institution of marriage as it applies to citizens of the United States is set in stone for as long as the republic lasts. No more, no less.

[Antoninus]

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

True enough. However, it's all about timing. A Federal Marriage Amendment we could pass quickly and relatively easily right now. We've still got a ways to go on abortion. Introducing such an amendment too early might kill it for a couple generations.

And coalitions forged to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment could easily be put to work on abortion the day after the amendment is ratified....

[Antoninus]

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

I disagree. I maintain that the Constitution IS broke when the Supreme Court can dictate cultural mores and declare phantom "rights" like the "right to sodomy" on a whim. The Founders would be aghast at such extra-constitutional actions.

This amendment would serve not only to put our country back to where it was on June 24, 2003 before this "right to sodomy" decision was rendered, but it would also be a direct slap at the rogues on the SCOTUS, effectively (one hopes) putting them back into their place. It also has the advantage of being completely within the framework envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It is our only check on a rogue Supreme Court. I say we use it!

[Antoninus]

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

God bless and protect you, David!

[GraniteStateConservative]

You feel like you have a ringside seat to history, JR?

[Antoninus]

is there dialogue between Alliance for Marriage, Defending the Family and other grass roots organizations committed to this cause?

If they weren't before, one would think they are now.

I hate to be practical about it, but as noble as this effort is, without a little coordination and planning, it's going to be a rough go.

Why do you "hate to be practical"? Admittedly, we're groping around in the dark right now, but this is just the first step. We need to find organizations to coalesce around and we are now only in an exploratory phase. I reckon that within a few weeks, things will be a lot more clear as to who's going to lead the charge.

We just have to keep the stove on "simmer" for a little while until things really get going.