"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the
union of a man and a woman," says the "Federal
Marriage Amendment" a proposed constitutional amendment,
introduced into the H ouse on Wednesday. Lead sponsor of the measure was
conservative, Rep. Ronnie Shows, D-MS. Shows' proposed constitutional
amendment, was drafted by an anti-gay religious right group, The Alliance for
Marriage, AFM. Calling themselves a pro-family group, began a similar
campaign about a year ago. AFM, Executive director, Matt Daniels, has
been sending out a warning to who ever would listen, that homosexual activists
are pressuring courts to impose same-sex marriage or civil unions on states.
And it seems there were at least six pairs of ears that
heeded his warning and are buying their message of bigotry and intolerance against gay .
AMA claims the Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable response to the crisis for our democratic society
created by those, ( those being gay, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people
that is), who would use the courts to overcome
public opinion with respect to marriage. Gays and lesbians have a right
to live as they choose. But they don't have a right to
redefine marriage for our entire society. However, it is acceptable for the AMA
and six House members to force their agenda of anti-gay equality,
down our throats. With the past years example of
strong support of GLBT rights, benefits and protection from discrimination
that was exhibited by voters at the ballot box. And pending
legislation, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA and the Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act 2001(Formerly the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act). AFM and their six House member counterparts, want
to strip the rights of voters, individual states and our courts to support
equality for GLBT's. Adding an amendment to the United States
Constitution, stating marriage in the United States shall consist only of
the union of a man and woman. the U.S. Constitution. It pre-empts court
challenges and serves to prevent states from passing any legislation
that would recognize marriage of same-sex couples or
civil unions nationwide , constitutionally banning gay marriages. It also would prevent the courts from requiring that
spousal benefits be given to unmarried couples. Their unsubstantiated claims
of an overwhelming cry from the public to protect the sanctity of
the institution of marriage from being degraded, is their sole motivating factor
for proposing their constitutional amendment. I haven't seen anyone
standing on a street corner or really any place else, who was crying
out that we need to protect the sanctity of the institution of
marriage from being degraded, have you?
Please give us a break, do they think we all have the word
stupid tattooed on our foreheads. Their actions are solely motivated by their desire to circumvent the
rights of individual states, our court system, the public and most of all, of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
citizens. And to promote their intolerance and anti-gay agenda.
In my opinion, The Alliance for Marriage, Reps. Ronnie
Shows, DO-MS, David Phelps, DO-Ill.; Ralph ME. Hall, D-Texas; Sue Wilkins
Myrick, R-NO.C.; Jo Ann S. Davis, R-Va.; and Chris Cannon, R-Utah,
are abusing the principles set forth in of our U.S.
Constitution. By proposing a constitutional amendment that limits or
denies a citizen or group of citizens certain, solely based on their
religious beliefs. And that forces their religious beliefs on all
citizens and denies them their right of to oppose such religious
beliefs through our courts or by
majority vote.
I propose a constitutional amendment that absolutely
prohibits the use of one's religious beliefs as a basis for arguing against
granting equality to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens in
rights, benefits and protections. This would leave no other reason or
argument what so ever for denying GLBT's equality. 1992 was the last time Congress passed a constitutional amendment. To
pass a constitution amendment, is by no means a
slam dunk, thank goodness. It requires two-thirds of
both houses of Congress to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment of it
passage. Even if that happens, before a constitutional amendment can take
effect, it still must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
It has only been a little over twenty-fours since
the constitutional amendment was proposed and the number of its detractors have greatly out numbered
supporters. It should not be a time for us to be complacent on this issue. Because, those who have the power, and continue to use
it, to stall and keep pro-gay rights legislation from going any farther
than their desk drawer. Surely, would make a point of pushing such a
constitution amendment through, even if it gets bogged down in
debate or kicked back to committee for lack of
support. They would rather have anti-gay legislation on the table any day, while
keeping any pro-gay type legislation locked up tight in
their desk draw. With the political deal making that goes on, we can
never feel safe as long as such legislation is still on the
table and not in a drawer.
Close Window
to Return to TBC Web Site