GOP Senators to Look Into Gay Marriage Ban

AP ^ | 3-3-04 | LOLITA C. BALDOR

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON (AP)--Determined to stop gay marriages, Republican senators said Wednesday they will move later this month to consider several versions of a constitutional amendment to block the same-sex unions.

But opponents on both sides of the political aisle said supporters fall far short of the votes needed in the House and Senate to amend the constitution. And any attempt to do so, said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a ``divisive political exercise'' aimed at influencing this year's election.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the recent scenes of gay couples marrying in San Francisco and New York are starting to resonate with the public.

``The chances (of passing an amendment) are getting better the more the American people find out,'' said Cornyn, who held a hearing in a Judiciary subcommittee on the issue Wednesday. And, he added, ``we should not waste time.''

He said the Judiciary Committee could act on a bill ``in the next few months.''

Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he supports amending the constitution, but his proposal may be more limited and guarantee that states need not recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

So far, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., has introduced the only legislation on the issue, calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. The bill has nine co-sponsors, including one Democrat, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia.

But there is a broad and unlikely alliance--from liberal gay rights and civil rights supporters to conservative Republican federalists--forming in opposition to the amendment. They range from conservative Sen. Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, who doesn't believe an amendment is necessary, to the more moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who said Congress shouldn't waste time on the matter when issues of war and the budget are paramount.

``Congress has better things to do than write bigotry and prejudice into the constitution,'' said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., adding that the recent decision by the high court in his state to allow same-sex marriages does not bind other states.

But advocates are taking their cue from President Bush who last week called for swift action on an amendment banning gay marriage. Same-sex unions, said GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist, are likely to spread across American like a ``wildfire.'' And amendment supporters said changing the constitution is the only way to stop activist judges from radically redefining marriage.

___

The bill is S.J. Res. 26

[WOSG]

the more moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who said Congress shouldn't waste time on the matter when issues of war and the budget are paramount.

I find this argument the most appalling crud. First, these guys make enough money and have enough staff to handle Second, if they can take time to regulate trivia like "gun locks" they can take the effort to protect the fundamental institution of marriage.

[Ronin]

Although I have not been very happy with him recently, I would like to hear more about Hatch's version before I make a judgment.

It seems more in keeping with my position that supports state rights.

The big problem with the DOMA is, of course, that it is likely to be shot down as unconstitutional as soon as the libs find an activist court willing to set it aside -- which will happen in California about 24 hours after the first gay couple presents it's MA issued marriage licence to a county clerk in Sacremento.

An amendment to the Constitution may be necessary, but if we have to have one, I would like one that affirms state rights.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

ping - I hope Lincoln Chaffee gets unelected. Soon.

[Zeppo]

And any attempt to do so, said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a ``divisive political exercise'' aimed at influencing this year's election.

My interpretation of Feingold's rant is that the Dems are scared silly about this can of worms (which, after all, they opened). Any issue that the Dems lose on is defined as "divisive", while any divisive issue that works in the Dem's favor is fair game. Disarming your opponent is great strategy, if you can get away with it. The Dems won't on this one.

[Jim_Curtis]

who doesn't believe an amendment is necessary, to the more moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who said Congress shouldn't waste time on the matter when issues of war and the budget are paramount.
----
Now I understand! I lived 40 years never hearing of the concept of "gay marriage" and have spent the last month hearing about nothing but "gay marriage". It comes up now because no one is supposed to have the energy to do anything about it. If these freaks were smart, they should have done this on 09/12/2001 and no one would have had the energy to stand against it.

Half-assed solutions won't do, we need an amendment or else we will just have it come up again and again until we just throw up our hands and give up.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Senators dithering around.

So Chafee is a moderate. Does moderate mean a leftist who's a wimp? I think so.

If anyone on or off this ping list, pingify me.

[mcg1969]

Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he supports amending the constitution, but his proposal may be more limited and guarantee that states need not recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

I for one would be totally fine with a more narrowed amendment such as this. Let each state decide if it wants to screw itself over or not, but don't force any opposing states to join the party.

[longtermmemmory]

Anyone who does not believe an amendment is needed is only lying to themselves or a homosexual.

[longtermmemmory]

It will not work because each state would be then able to demand its definition be given equal protection for use with federal law (taxation and immigration)

The amendemnt MUST define marriage as a man and a woman ACROSS THE STATES. (We did it before so we do it again) This will protect FEDERAL LAW from homosexual marriage.

Leave any wacko civil unions to the states.

[longtermmemmory]

The DNC wants to extend sociali security sposal benefits to hmosexuals. homosexual marriage is nothing but a government entitlement based on sexual conduct. IOW we are PAYING homosexuals with tax dollars to have sex.

[longtermmemmory]

This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov

Write letters of support to all senators and representatives.
These members count the letters of support.

There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.

These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internee and (oddly enough) nightclubs.

Amendment Text:

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.

This is very doable.

 

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

 

BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL

HOME >

MEMBERS

Orrin G. Hatch CHAIRMAN, UTAH	Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley IOWA	Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA	Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Jon Kyl ARIZONA	Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine OHIO	Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA	Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA	Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK
Larry Craig IDAHO	Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA	John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS

 BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26

Dear [ Decision Maker ]

I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.

This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.

This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies the law which exists now.

This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures. The activist courts have made this a federal issue. There are no other options.

Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.

Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

[mcg1969]

Dude, this is a constitutional amendment. It can be designed to override all these "demands". It can simply state that no state is required to recognize the legality of civil unions from another state unless they involve exactly one man and one woman. As an amendment it circumvents any equal protection arguments.

[DMZFrank]

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

The marriage amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[Indy Pendance]

It's so frustrating, we see right before our eyes the blantant destruction of our constitution, a cival war, those elected to uphold the law are refusing to uphold the law of the land, and no one seems to care.

Encouraging article