Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Jobber of the Week

Anti gay marriage groups: Hey lawmakers

Recommended Posts

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...13/MN282143.DTL

 

Religious conservatives pledge an all-out drive to enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution, calling it the last line of defense against an inevitable court-led destruction of a fundamental social institution.

 

Their Federal Marriage Amendment, after dying with no action in the last Congress, has been reintroduced, this time with 75 House co-sponsors. Senate hearings are scheduled for September, and the proposed amendment has the blessing of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

 

Gay groups and opponents of the anti-gay-marriage amendment in Congress say they take it seriously and, privately, express considerable alarm.

 

"I think you've got this panic on both sides," said an activist who talks to religious conservatives and gay rights groups. "The groups concerned about the gay agenda need to come up with a line in the sand that works, and gay marriage might. The gay groups don't mind politicians being against gay marriage, as long as it's not written into the Constitution. They figure they can come back in 10 years when things have calmed down and revisit it."

 

The Senate Republican Policy Committee, pressing for the amendment, has argued that "no statutory solution appears to be available" against what it describes as a legal onslaught on heterosexual marriage.

 

As the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, put it, "You can't rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional."

 

 

COURT RULING COULD BE KEY

If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules -- as it could any day -- that gay couples have a right to marry in that state, the push to amend the federal Constitution will pick up more force.

 

President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have said they are awaiting the Massachusetts court's decision to determine how to further "codify" that legal marriage remain the union of a man and a woman.

 

Many read that as support for a constitutional amendment, given that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act already requires marriage to be between a man and a woman for federal purposes, such as in the case of taxes and immigration law, and authorizes states to ignore any same-sex marriages granted by other states.

 

"There are two possibilities with that reference" by Bush, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "Either he was babbling -- which I don't rule out entirely -- or he's for a constitutional amendment."

 

Frank and two other openly gay House members, Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., have circulated a letter to their colleagues denouncing the amendment.

 

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would provide a single definition of marriage for all states. It reads, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor 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."

 

 

AMENDMENT FACES TOUGH SELL

Supporters acknowledge they face a daunting task to win passage of a constitutional amendment, which has happened only 17 times in American history. Amending the Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the Senate and House and three-quarters of the state legislatures.

 

But advocates of the amendment contend that a Massachusetts court decision favorable to gays, coming on the heels of Canada's recognition of gay marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, which struck down state sodomy laws in an unprecedented affirmation of gay equality, would make the Constitution the only remaining potential barrier to same-sex marriage.

 

"There's no question that this is a monumental undertaking, but on the other hand, this is a defining moment for people of faith," Sheldon said. "I believe this issue will be a strong rally point. You won't have a problem getting people's attention."

 

The Family Research Council initially opposed a constitutional amendment but has reconsidered in light of the Lawrence decision and the pending Massachusetts case, as well as similar cases in New Jersey, Arizona and Indiana.

 

"While it seems a very arduous way to go, we at this point endorse all legal answers to what we consider a breakdown of the one-man, one-woman contract that is marriage," said Connie Mackey, head of government affairs for the Family Research Council.

 

Those who support the amendment "feel that there's a very short window of time in which to move to protect marriage as the cornerstone of raising a healthy society," Mackey said. "They feel that they're in a position now where they're going to have to move quickly to make sure that the courts can't overstep their bounds."

 

SUPPORT FOR '96 MARRIAGE ACT

 

Supporters say the overwhelming votes for the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 under President Clinton's signature, give them a good shot at prevailing. DOMA, as it is known, passed the Senate 85-14, drawing in such liberals as Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and winning the support of 62 current senators. (California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, voted against the bill.) DOMA swept through the House 342 to 77. Both tallies are well over the two-thirds needed for an amendment.

 

Many gay activists say the marriage debate has come way too early, politically. "This is a dog issue for us," one gay activist said. "The polls are just devastating."

 

Baldwin said the timing for a debate on gay marriage may not be the best, but "we don't have that choice when we're talking the actions of a court. We can speculate, but we don't get that choice."

 

For now -- pending the Massachusetts decision -- gay activists contend they have nearly enough votes to stop an amendment in the House, where they need 146, and the Senate, where they need 34.

 

"We have indications from roughly 30 to 32 members of the Senate, and the numbers in the House are in the low 100s," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the strongest gay lobbying force on Capitol Hill.

 

Frank puts the odds of the amendment's passage as "very slender."

 

To Sheldon's predictions of success, Frank retorted, "Are you in the habit of paying attention to that fool? I'm not. That's on the record."

 

Frank noted that DOMA passed in part on states' rights grounds: It allows a state not to recognize gay marriages from another state. A constitutional amendment forcing states not to recognize gay marriage, by contrast, "is a total flip," he said, noting the Vice President Dick Cheney argued during the 2000 campaign that marriage should remain a state domain.

 

Conservatives who have long warned that the federal government has too much power over the states find a constitutional amendment depriving states of one of their most long-standing jurisdictions -- marriage laws -- highly unpalatable. Even a chief DOMA sponsor, former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., has said he opposes a constitutional amendment on those grounds.

 

Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the problem with the amendment is that "it defines marriage for the entire country, which I find inconsistent with the federalism principle at the core of the Constitution. Family law has always been a state issue, not a federal issue."

 

Pilon compared the gay marriage amendment to attempts to use the Constitution to ban flag burning and protect victims' rights.

 

Sounds like some people are starting to wake up and smell the states rights burning. Good for them, now hopefully they'll start taking action before the Sheldons and the Robertsons push this through.

 

And for the "let the religious folk keep their marriage" people who didn't read, this puts the legal rights of married couples in jeopardy, too. Just the fact that they want to disturb the constitution with shit like this makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

I, too, am sicked by these idiots. When are they going to realize that America is not a damn theocracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can republicans support this when they are supposed to be for STATE'S FUCKING RIGHTS?

 

These religious groups are truly dipshits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can republicans support this when they are supposed to be for STATE'S FUCKING RIGHTS?

 

These religious groups are truly dipshits.

Because the Supreme Court overrules State's Rights if those cases on Gay Marriage get to them. That's a no-brainer there. In reality, by taking it through the legal processes both sides are threatening state's rights if you want to argue the point.

 

Edit: Don't take this as me being against Gay Rights, but I think both sides are hurting themselves by trying to bypass having popular support to get what they want as quickly as possible. Look at the backlash after the Sodomy Cases in the Supreme Court and now the backlash against the religious Hardliners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but now you have Bush saying "I think we ought to codify that," while Cheney was defending states rights three years ago.

 

Of course, Bush also used to talk about "we shouldn't go around saying 'this is how it's going to be'" either, and look what happened there. Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, just let gays marry each other already, because I'm tired of people bitching about all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be one thing if Republican officials came out and said, "marriage" should be defined as a man&woman, but I still feel gays are equal under the constitution so we need to find a way to get them something equivelant as far as the tax relief and other shit goes, yet that isn't going to happen. They are treating gays like second class citizens and they just want to push religious agenda on americans and now they want a fucking constitutional amendment for it!?! WTF.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, just let gays marry each other already, because I'm tired of people bitching about all of this.

It's not so much that I want gay people getting official recognitions (though I do, for equal privelages and all) as much as it is that I have a thing about keeping tabs on the fundies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, just let gays marry each other already, because I'm tired of people bitching about all of this.

We did in Canada and even more people are bitching now that they do have the right to marry. This is like the issue of abortion where you will never get either side to see any sort of common ground at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
It would be one thing if Republican officials came out and said, "marriage" should be defined as a man&woman, but I still feel gays are equal under the constitution so we need to find a way to get them something equivelant as far as the tax relief and other shit goes, yet that isn't going to happen. They are treating gays like second class citizens and they just want to push religious agenda on americans and now they want a fucking constitutional amendment for it!?! WTF.....

And the difference between a gay couple and, say, a man and a woman living together out of wedlock is what, exactly?

-=Mike --- "Let's just open all barn doors and try to put the chickens back in AFTER the fact"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think with all that is going wrong with the world today, the whole, "we have to stop homos from getting married, the bastards" is a lame way to kick the "save the world" stance off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×