Marriage Amend. Re-introduced in Senate with 22 Sponsors

AP ^ | Jan 24, 2005 | Michael Foust

[West Coast Conservative]

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.

"This legislation is being introduced to protect and defend traditional marriage," the amendment's sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, R.-Colo., said in a statement. "We must not stand still when the courts are being used to challenge and distort civilization's oldest, most venerable social institution. We are responding to that challenge."

The federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages" -- is being challenged in federal courts in California, Florida and Oklahoma. In addition, lawsuits seeking the legalization of same-sex "marriage" are pending in nine states.

Marriage amendment supporters made gains during the 2004 election, as reflected by the list of co-sponsors. Four new senators are co-sponsors -- Richard Burr of North Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota, David Vitter of Louisiana and Mel Martinez of Florida. All four replaced senators who opposed the marriage amendment.

So far, all 22 sponsors are Republican. On a procedural vote last summer, only three Democrats supported the amendment.

[ScottM1968]

For all the problems I have with homosexual marriage, I believe the worst thing about marriage is what Christians have made of it.

As of 1999, the divorce rate among those who have professed to follow Christ has been higher than the national average.

And to make it worse, we then commit adultery when we marry others rather than reconcile or stay single.

Our vows exist until we die. Apparently, this does not matter when it comes to marriage between Christians.

Marriage is now contractual dating.

God must weep.

[Rodney King]

The problem is that the amendment that they are offering is poorly worded. All that the amendment ought to state is that "Nothing in this Constitution shall require any state to recognize same-sex marriage". Or something like that. That way, we truly are just protecting ourselves from out of control judges.

[SandRat]

Pass the pop corn please. This is going to be fun to watch the LIBERALS go nuts.

[polymuser]

Some of them ARE listening. Supporters must rally behind them again with even greater vigor. DOMA won't work -- put no energy there.

ScottM1968: check out http://www.covenantmarriage.com/ for some fresh air.

[TheDon]

But amendment backers say a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only permanent remedy.

From a legal perspective, undeniably true.

[StonyBurk]

As Senator ALlard sponsored it--I shall Thank Him--and as
Salazar replaced Ben Campbell-I shall write and ask him to
sponsor this worthy and needed legislation.Were this yet
the United States of America-"a Christian nation"and our
judiciary not an oligarchy of despots such Constitutional
amendments would not be necessary--sadly with a Judiciary
tha tno longer recognizes nor considers itself under the
Constitution such paper is necessary.as meager control of
the wackjob globalist freaks as it provides.

[numberonepal]

This needs to go away, and fast. The States are stepping up to the plate quite nicely in this regard. I think the point has been made that folks in America are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. These Critters need to find something else to introduce as a Constitutional alteration, namely the Fair Tax. The fewer hits the Constitution takes the better. Repealing the 16th Amendment is going to be a huge hit and will require a great effort of focus and determination to get it done.

[polymuser]

DOMA is already challenged, and many feel it won't work, making the federal amendment necessary.

If we're going in for one amendment, might as well be for two.

[Andy'smom]

"I think the point has been made that folks in America are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage."


It doesn't seem to matter if the majority of citizens of a state are opposed or not. It only takes a couple of liberal judges. Look at Massachusetts.

[k2blader]

Bump!