[longtermmemmory]

I agree. This seems more like a plant story to discourage.

This is the committee that has the amendment.

Call and write to show support.

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

---

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

---

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

 

[JohnnyZ]

The Republicans on that committee are very strong on social issues, I believe. And most hail from districts that are Very pro-marriage (Alabama, Tennessee, suburban/rural Virginia . . .)

[livianne]

Well, this is Sensenbrenner's reaction to the Mass court decision:

Sensenbrenner Statement on Today’s Massachusetts State Court Ruling Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court:

“While the decision of the Massachusetts court is unsettling for many reasons - including its reference to ‘evolving’ constitutional standards and its reliance on a decision by a court in Ontario, Canada - it is important to note that the decision of the Massachusetts court today addressed only the requirements of Massachusetts law, and not federal law. In fact, federal law under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already provides that other states need not recognize marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples under Massachusetts law or any other state law. I expect state and federal courts will appropriately enforce DOMA.

“If the people of Massachusetts and their Legislature wish to address today’s ruling, I would encourage them to follow Hawaii’s actions when it faced a similar ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1997: Hawaii enacted a state constitutional amendment in 1999 providing marriage as between one man and one woman.”


As someone who lives in Massachusetts and just recently got married, I'd really like to see something done before the 180 days are up and same sex couples can start picking up their licenses. I'd like to know that marriage license in Massachusetts will remain a meaningful document, not a part of the rapid decline of values.