[longtermmemmory]

There are homosexual advocates with petition sites up already. The are soliciting signatures for petitionis in opposition. I could not find the language of the amendment other than this antimarriage petition. The media is blocking the public from seeing this ammendment. The fear the public's support of protecting marriage, children and families.

If anyone has information about who is the sponsor in the house and senate PLEASE post.

[aristeides]

You don't even have to be particularly opposed to gay marriage to support this amendment. If this amendment is ratified, it will serve as a rebuke to the Supreme Court for its high-handed Lawrence and Limon rulings, and may persuade that court to apply those rulings narrowly and to avoid similar such rulings in the future.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Need to change that last line in the amendment to state:

"...shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups or or gerbils or animals, either vertebrate or invertebrate, or corpses, or objects."

[mvpel]

Let's just repeal the Internal Revenue Code and get governments OUT of the marriage business altogether!!

[DAnconia55]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." "Neither this Constitution or 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."

It needs alteration:

Nothing else, no other right or power of government or cause action of the courts can be derived from this Amendment. The Federal government will not levy any monies in support of this Amendment. The Federal Government cannot impose any conditions, tests, or licenses upon a couple meeting the definition of marriage above.

Or some such.
I'm TELLING YOU. This is a mistake as written, and we'll end up with a Federal Marriage Department. Watch!

[Saundra Duffy]

I hope it flies!

[mvpel]

The only reason anyone gives a cr@p about the definition of marriage is because of all the tax and legal benefits that arise because of it. If we stripped our governments of the power to license and register marriage, we would be back to the fundamental issue involved, that is, the right of contract.

Government's role should be in the enforcement of contracts, not in the definition of what contracts are and are not legitimate.

[PhiKapMom]

Believe one of the sponsors is a Colorado Rep -- do you know which one?

[ChicagoGuy]

So much for 'states rights'. Many of the people who will support this bs amendment (which deprives the states of their right to define marriage themselves as they have done for 200+ years) will claim they support states' rights and a smaller federal government. Don't believe them. They only support states rights when they agree with them, and they only want a smaller federal government when it is convenient to their social agenda.

[AntiGuv]

The amendment resolution has not been introduced yet in the Senate. Marilyn Musgrave [CO-02] introduced H.J. Res. 56 in the House on May 21st. These are the 25 cosponsors thus far:

Todd Akin [MO-02]
Roscoe Bartlett [MD-06]
Michael Burgess [TX-26]
Jo Ann Davis [VA-01]
Jim DeMint [SC-04]
Virgil Goode [VA-05]
Ralph Hall [TX-04] Democrat
Johnny Isakson [GA-06]
Ernest Istook [OK-05]
Sam Johnson [TX-03]
Walter Jones [NC-03]
Mark Kennedy [MN-06]
Steve King [IA-05]
Ron Lewis [KY-02]
Mike McIntyre [NC-07] Democrat
Jeff Miller [FL-01]
Charlie Norwood [GA-09]
Mike Pence [IN-06]
Collin Peterson [MN-07] Democrat
Joseph Pitts [PA-16]
Jim Ryun [KS-02]
Mark Souder [IN-03]
David Vitter [LA-01]
Dave Weldon [FL-15]
Joe Wilson [SC-02]

[finnman69]

looks good to me...let's vote on it.

[Sabertooth]

Walter Fauntroy, civil rights leader who organized the March on Washington for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., commending members of Congress for their bi-partisan support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

MULTICULTURAL COALITION REINTRODUCES
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN CONGRESS

Strong Bi-Partisan Sponsorship Reflects The Fact that the Future of Marriage In America Is More Important Than Partisan Politics

WASHINGTON, DC - The Alliance for Marriage (AFM) has announced the reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution in the House of Representatives with strong bi-partisan support.

The reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment comes in anticipation of an imminent decision in Goodridge v. MA Dept of Public Health -- a case that activists openly declare they intend to use as the foundation for constitutional challenges to all of America's marriage laws. For example, the Boston Bar Association has publicly called for "federal constitutional claims" to be brought against all state and federal marriage laws in the aftermath of a likely victory in this case by early summer.

The bi-partisan cosponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment are: Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Ralph Hall (D-TX), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), David Vitter (R-LA).

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or 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.

	REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE	"Civil Unions" "Domestic Partnerships"	BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MARRIAGE	EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OFFERED BY BUSINESSES
IMPOSED BY COURTS	Sentence 1 Prohibits	Sentence 2 Prohibits	Sentence 2 Prohibits	Unaffected
ACTION OF STATE LEGISLATURE	Sentence 1 Prohibits	Decision of State Legislature	Decision of State Legislature	Unaffected

Downloadable Color Graphic On Legal Impact of the Federal Marriage Amendment

The first sentence simply states that marriage in the United States consists of the union of male and female. The second sentence ensures that the democratic process at the state level will continue to determine the allocation of the benefits associated with marriage. But the courts are precluded from distorting existing constitutional or statutory law into a requirement that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be reallocated pursuant to a judicial decree. The Federal Marriage Amendment has no impact at all on benefits offered by private businesses and corporations.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable response to the crisis for our democratic society created by those 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.

It is very important to remember that the entire effort to undermine the legal status of marriage in the courts is premised upon constitutional law. For example, activist organizations openly admit their plans to use the Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit clauses of the United States Constitution to eventually impose same-sex "marriage" and "civil unions" on every state in the nation. The only question is whether the constitutional status of marriage will be determined by unelected judges or the American people.

Info on Legal Impact

Answers To Questions

AFM Press Statement

Previous News Coverage

Gay Marriage Devalues Women USA TODAY

Top of Page   AFM Home

Wirthlin Poll  ||  Marriage Amendment  ||  Mission  ||  News Coverage  ||  President  ||  Board of Advisors Marriage Awards  ||  Not Married to the Job  ||  Welfare Reform  ||  Make a Contribution

        © Copyright Alliance for Marriage, 2002 . All rights reserved.
        Alliance for Marriage
        P.O. Box 1305
        Springfield, VA 22151-0305

Alliance for Marriage

[StolarStorm]

What a waste of time. Just a silly distraction from the real issues that face our nation.

[eastsider]

Let's roll!!!

[Imagine]

I like where you're going. How do we handle, say, the marriage of two men in Belguim or Denmark?

[FreedomCalls]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Define "man." Define "woman." Can a gay man get a writ from a judge declaring him to be a her? If he can simply redefine himself legally as a "woman" then he can meet the letter of the Amendment and get married anyway.

[MosesKnows]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Isn't that reduntant, or did you not know the definition of the word marriage?

The Constitution was not established for the purpose of denying the people anything. The Constitution is solely about government and not about the people.

Leave our Constitution alone.

[NeoCaveman]

Just makes sure in the wording they stick with "shall" using "is" could get confusing.

[RightWhale]

Do not further amend the Constitution.

[MissAmericanPie]

Gee, and I wanted to marry my telephone. (pout)

This Supreme Court has really embarassed itself. I don't have alot of faith in this making it's way through all the states and return to Washington a done deal.

Even if it makes it through the states, the Senate is another matter.

[steplock]

RED signifies Completion.

Gramsci-(original Italian) = Gramschi = Gramski-(sp prefered by communists)
Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

A.The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
1.Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
2.Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
3.Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
4.Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)

B.Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
1.The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
2.When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism

C.Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
1.Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
2.Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
3.Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
4.Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
5.Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
6.Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons


D.Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as "global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"

E.Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a Communist revolution can succeed
1.Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
a.Terror will only drive Religion underground
b.Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
c.So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men

2.Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
a.Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
b.Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
(1)Cause financial and sexual scandals
(2)See that this is given a high profile in the news
(3)Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate


3.Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been traditionally brought before the church

F.When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
1.National Consensus
2.Popular Mandate
3.National Pacification
4.Pluralism
5.Global Community
6.Economic Justice
7.Economic Democracy
8.Liberation Theology
9.Direct Action

G.Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread." Gramski's Archives:

http://www.cruznet.net/~marcus/gramsci-links.html