Marriage amend. re-introduced in Senate with 22 sponsors

[struggle4progress]

WASHINGTON (BP)--A marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution was re-introduced in the Senate Jan. 24 with support from Majority Leader Bill Frist and 21 other senators.

Although the amendment was defeated last year, supporters hope it has a better chance of passing this session following a slew of conservative victories on Election Day, when voters in 11 states passed marriage amendments to their respective state constitutions. They passed with an average of 70.1 percent of the vote.

But amendment backers say a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only permanent remedy. Its name has changed a bit from the last session, when it was known as the "Federal Marriage Amendment." It now is called the "Marriage Protection Amendment."

The amendment is Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 1. <snip>

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19969

[struggle4progress]

1. Evangelicals fuming about Bush’s remark on federal marriage amendment

White House spokesman says president was speaking realistically of measure’s support in Senate; Bush remains committed to amendment

By Tammye Nash
Staff Writer

Almost a year after he first spoke in favor of an amendment to the United States Constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage, President Bush was quoted this week saying passage of the amendment was no longer one of his priorities.

In an interview with the Washington Post published last Sunday, the president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because many senators believe the federal Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient.

“Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I’d take their admonition seriously. … Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate,” Bush said.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton on Sept. 22, 1996, allows individual states to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state. It also for purposes of federal law defined marriage as “a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.” <snip>

http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=5593


EDITORIAL: Bush signals he won't push hard, if at all, for ban
The Lufkin Daily News
Friday, January 21, 2005

One of the more odious ideas pushed by President Bush during his re-election campaign was that the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as being solely between "one man and one woman." That's our definition of marriage, too, but that's where our agreement ends.

First of all, marriage is a matter for the states, not the federal government, to decide.

And more importantly, one of the reasons the nation has historically amended the Constitution — except for Prohibition, which was later repealed — was to expand, and not restrict, individual freedom. Amending the Constitution to make it legal to discriminate against some Americans just because they are gay would set a dangerous precedent by signaling out some Americans for less-than-equal treatment.

Since winning re-election, Bush has been silent on a gay marriage amendment — until he was asked about it during an interview last week with The Washington Post. We don't doubt the president personally opposes gay marriage, but his response suggests that his pre-election support for a Federal Marriage Amendment was a matter of political expedience to shore up his conservative base, and not one of bedrock principle. <snip>

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/01/21/20050121LDNeddy.html;COXnetJSessionID=B1KQy9ZfoqVfjRZrep3jGYn0idcvk4xyg9xRuxpWs9o5vnFiwWqm!1872676203?urac=n&urvf=11066108320370.12246460540870385

[ck4829]

2. Marriage 'protection'?

I am tired of RW'ers saying Muslims such as myself are intolerant. I believe God loves GLBT people as well as people of every religion.

What the Christian Right is doing is not love or compassion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I, too, am tired

of being immediately labeled intolerant or a terrorist just because of my faith. God loves everyone. Salaams to my brother/sister.

[The Zanti Regent]

16. I say call their bluff.

Lets see someone put an amendment on this defining marriage between ONE COUPLE for LIFE with NO DIVORCE!

Lets see Newt Gingrich go after that and then rub the BI BULL in his porcine face!

[bear425]

22. Exactly. This "Marriage Protection Ammendment"

should outlaw divorce. And because it won't result in a pregnancy they should also outlaw post menopausal marriage, too. Sickos.

[VegasWolf]

3. What about "protecting" innocent people from xtian fundies? n/t

[ck4829]

5. I'm wondering that too

I am just so sickened when a Republican who promotes Marriage 'protection' acts comes and says this is not about hate or bigotry, but then they refuse to promote legislation that will protect GLBT people.

[complain jane]

6. I agree.

The only people they want to protect are small and hateful people.

[struggle4progress]

23. "Protection of Religion Amendment" barring from public office ...

... anyone who cheapens religious faith by misusing it for political purposes.

[Just Me]

7. This "back-door" hate outrages me!!!

The most freakin' miserable people just MUST find a new target to persecute,...and it is disgusting!!!

I'm heterosexual,...I'm not threatened by homosexuals,...there is no law imposing upon the health of my relationships,...and it's just irrational for people to view homosexuals as a threat to their own personal choices.

This is all a distraction from the real underlying disease in this country: suffering, fear, powerlessness and desperation,...all of which are generated from a corporatist state that usurps economic and social justice. MONEY BUYS "JUSTICE".

:mad:

[Goldeneye]

8. Lets call it what it is:

Marriage Control ammendment proposal.

[4_Legs_Good]

10. I like your name for it!

We should propose it to Frist!

david

[4_Legs_Good]

9. 22 Senators backing it is pretty pathetic, no?

Don't they need like 67?

It's all for show.

Sick that it's SJR 1, though. Nothing more important could be put on the Senate's plate? This had to be the first thing they did?

david

[shraby]

11. They can do this, but can't seem to

get the voting bill to the floor for debate. :crazy:

[booksenkatz]

12. Please explain to me in 50 words or less

how this amendment would protect my marriage? Particularly since there is no threat to my marriage to begin with. I've had gay friends all my life, and they in fact support my marriage the way I support their relationships. (I think I can count more divorces among my straight friends than split-ups in relationships among my gay friends.) Before we amend the Constitution of the United States, someone needs to make it very clear to me how my gay friends somehow threaten my very excellent and stable marriage (20 years in May) and how making my gay friends' long-standing relationships inferior to my long-standing relationship will somehow miraculously make my marriage divorce-proof.... or something? I never can grasp the logic on this huge steaming pile of horseshit. And somehow it's because my gay friends and I do different things sexually, is that what this pile is about? That's what it boils down to, right? The right wing is rounding up people based solely on what they do with their genitalia and making them second-class citizens. Tell me I'm wrong.

[tubbacheez]

15. It's very clear what is being protected.

What backers of this stupid amendment won't say outright is what they're really trying to protect.


It's the special status and priviledges accorded to certain couples. That's what is being protected or defended or whatever.


And heaven knows their base has a large number of downtrodden people who got the inane idea that they need the government to tell them they're somehow special and elite in some way.

When times are tough, and they have been, this refusal to share benefits is just as endearing as granting new benefits. For lawmakers, it's cheaper too.

[booksenkatz]

17. Yep...

there's nothing better than having "I'm better than you" engraved into the Constitution of the United States! Woo-hoo! Divide and conquer! Make sure that members of the working class have someone to look down and spit on so that they feel better about themselves and don't have time to notice that they have no jobs and no healthcare and no future whatsoever!!
:puke:

[tubbacheez]

20. Herein lies our most effective counter.

It's too bad the Repubs control the debate. They've spun the status quo a dozen ways: as a family value, as an American tradition, as a religious tenet, a some defense against encroachment by GLBTs, etc.

If we controlled the framing, we could lay the cold truth on the table, that all American couples been living under a system of condoned apartheid. Some couples have benefitted from it. Some couples have not.

Too often, our side gets derailed into lame debates over such things as: comparing the merits of various sexual orientations, or speculating on what exactly is "natural", or Biblical interpretation, or divorce rates, or homophobia, or other tangential social topics.

On this subject, they cannot win on merits alone, so they deliberately complicate the issues and lump several debates into one.

By controlling the debate, they keep leading it (and us) into a swamp of controversial issues. We suddenly have to defend many ideas, while they just sit back and enforce the status quo. And then call us weirdos.

This is utter baloney.

If we're going to make any progress on this, we need to focus the issue. We need to talk about legal equality, as in equal rights under the law.

End the apartheid. End the legalized discrimination against same-sex couples in property law, estate law, family law, and employment law.




When I talk to people about this, I make sure to stay on message. But I could sure use some help in this regard.

[struggle4progress]

24. I think it's supposed to keep you from leaving your spouse ...

... for somebody's pet goat.

[The Zanti Regent]

13. Gays and Lesbians deserve FULL RIGHTS now!

and I am tired of the closet queens in the Nazi Party who deny Gays and Lesbians their rights!

Bible thumping Nazis love to bullshit about Gays and Lesbians wanting "special rights". I want those closet queen Nazis to tell me what they mean by "Special Rights"? Oh they will mumble and fumble, but they won't come out with a credible definition.

And we all know if this was 40 years ago, the same bullshit was aimed at African and Hispanic Americans. The Nazis failed then and they WILL fail now!

[msongs]

14. repeat after me, its all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, kids....

keeps that xian fear based cash flowing into the churches and the republican party.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Cats Against Frist]

18. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

Why the FUCK can't we just all have civil unions and let the churches take care of the word "marriage?" Seems like a REAL SIMPLE FUCKING SOLUTION.

I'm against marriage and see it is a useless feel-good institution, which most people promptly trash before the ink is dry on the wedding certificate. The bachelor party, the "oh my god, I'm never going to sleep with another person," the exorbitant and wasteful and tacky ceremonies -- it's for plebs. I'd much rather have a mature non-married relationship based on mutual respect, without the strippers, the fat best man, the champagne fountain and the perms.

Thanks.

[Cats Against Frist]

19. And the fucking "Chicken Dance" n/t

[superconnected]

25. it's for everyone, all religions, cultures, athiests etc.

They'll never get rid of it. People will keep getting married because people go nuts about each other.

The Fundies just try to make it seem like they own "marriage". Marriage is what you make of it. There are no carved in stone rules of behavior - unless of course you're a fundie (which you obviously are not.)

Protection of marriage in this case is protection of the Fundie view of how marriage should be.

If we pick a group in society to refuse rights to- gays for example, women will be next.

Applying fundies views to marriage, will then cascade to their views on women roles.

[superconnected]

26. anyway, we need to fight this tooth and nail

deciding marriage shouldn't exist isn't likely the answer.

[BattyDem]

21. I'm glad to see they have their priorities in order

After all, I wouldn't want our elected officials worrying about the deficit, jobs, healthcare, education, the environment, the war, the loss of privacy and civil rights, the erosion of the separation of Church and State, election fraud, and a "leader" who wants to invade the entire world! :eyes:

This is a disgrace! Never before has the Constitution been amended to discriminate against a particular group of people. How does preventing people from getting married protect marriage? :mad:

What are they protecting marriage from? Divorce? No wait, that's legal. Adultery? It may not be moral, but there's nothing illegal about it. Domestic violence and abuse? It may not be legal, but apparently the US Government doesn't consider it a threat to marriage.
Ok ... I give up ... what is marriage being protected from?? :shrug:

I am so sick of these assholes! :grr:

[superconnected]

28. It plays out the fundie sickness

This is their insanity in action. Accepting this discrimination into our constitution clears the path for more discrimination to all minority groups.

That's what they have ran on the last few decades. It got them elected so they could fleece the united states - ie the iraq war profiting. It's what will keep them in power because bigoted people will keep voting them in for it.

The deficit, health care, education etc, are things they never cared about. They don't believe in health care, they don't care how big they grow the deficit and they've suggested getting rid of funding education and going completely to homeschooling.

So it isn't about helping the US. It's only about staying in power so they can fleece us.

[Solly Mack]

27. "...is the only permanent remedy." Remedy to what?

What threatens my marriage so greatly that the US government feels an amendment is needed to protect it?

Why don't the ignorant little bigots just say what they really mean. It's not as if these primordial ooze asswipes are afraid of voicing their bigtry. So why don't they stop dressing up their hate as protection of somebody else's rights...

Anyone with a working brain stem knows this is an attack on the GLBT community.