The Alliance for Marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm

[Antoninus]

Poll Finds that Most Americans Support a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Marriage



Communities of Color Lead the Way In Support for a Federal Marriage Amendment on a Day When Marriage Goes On Trial in the Massachusetts Courts

WASHINGTON, DC — A national Wirthlin poll released March 4, 2003 by the Alliance for Marriage shows that a majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman from lawsuits being filed by activist lawyers in courts across the country.

The release of these findings comes on a day when the state supreme court of Massachusetts will hear oral argument in Goodridge v. MA Dept of Health — a case that activist lawyers intend to use as a foundation for "constitutional" challenges to all of America's marriage laws. For example, the Boston Bar Association has openly called for "federal constitutional claims" to be brought against all state and federal marriage laws in the aftermath of a victory in this case.







One of the most important findings of this new Wirthlin poll is that overwhelming numbers of Hispanics (63%) and African-Americans (62%) support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from such lawsuits. This is ironic since most of the legal arguments in the Goodridge case — and similar suits filed in New Jersey and Indiana — are based upon comparisons between the marriage laws of contemporary America and racist laws enforcing legal segregation and discrimination in the South.

In addition, working class and low income Americans (63%) are also among some of the strongest supporters of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

The findings of this national Wirthlin poll have a margin of error of 3.1% and are based upon a survey of 1,000 American adults conducted last month by Wirthlin Worldwide.

The Alliance for Marriage is a non-partisan, multicultural coalition whose Board of Advisors includes Rev. Walter Fauntroy — the former DC Delegate who organized the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. -- as well as other civil rights and religious leaders, and national legal experts.

[Antoninus]

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

Let's get moving on this, people!

[Antoninus]

Oops. Screwed up the link above. It's here:

[Antoninus]

I mean here (sorry!):

The Alliance for Marriage

[jwalsh07]

Here is one possible answer to the question you posed about minorities and marriage.

[Mo1]

FYI

[steplock]

Click here for:

Alliance for Marriage

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting this! We really do need to get on board this! Enough is enough!

[PhiKapMom]

LOL!!! You beat me -- I was just doing a ping!

[Paleo Conservative]

Another thing that is needed is an ammendment allowing for the states to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions. I think that if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote to overturn a Supreme Court decision within two years of its being issued, that Supreme Court decesion should be null and void.

[templar]

It's a noble effort, but I have serious doubts it will succeed. I think enthusiasm for it will got the way support for a flag burning ammendment or the ERA did. A slow loss of momentum till it becomes non viable.

[AntiGuv]

Thanks for posting this! We really do need to get on board this! Enough is enough!

I neither support nor oppose the Amendment. Whether or not the Congress passes and the States ratify this Amendment is fine by me. I'm just intrigued to find out the dimensions & outcome of this historic cultural battle.

[AntiGuv]

Another thing that is needed is an ammendment allowing for the states to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions.

Umm.. That's precisely what Amendments are for..

[templar]

I think that if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote to overturn a Supreme Court decision within two years of its being issued, that Supreme Court decesion should be null and void.

That's basically what a constitutional ammendment does now. The only way the States have of acting in unison on an issue is through Congress (Senate represents the States, House of Representatives represents the people).

[Polycarp]

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

Winston Churchill (The Gathering Storm, p348):

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[AntiGuv]

If this makes it out of the Congress, I've counted exactly 38 states [the required minimum] that I think likely to ratify. The key hurdle will be the U.S. House & Senate.

[Antoninus]

Ping....

Invoking the "Appeal to ping list" for those of you with them.

[Antoninus]

It's a noble effort, but I have serious doubts it will succeed. I think enthusiasm for it will got the way support for a flag burning ammendment or the ERA did. A slow loss of momentum till it becomes non viable.

Perhaps. But I'm one of those annoying optimists.....

[Antoninus]

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Well done. I always loved this quote.

[templar]

If this makes it out of the Congress, I've counted exactly 38 states [the required minimum] that I think likely to ratify.

It'll be one H#LL of a fight. I think it'll get real, real partisan. How many of those States that are likely are Demon controlled?

[Paleo Conservative]

t's basically what a constitutional ammendment does now

Except that I would omit the involvement of the House and Senate; they are part of the problem. Quite a number of Supreme Court decisions are made favoring concentration of power in Washington DC and against the states. If the Supreme Court knew that it's decisions could be overturned by the collective actions of a supermajority of the states, there would be a greater incentive for moderation in the decisions of the Supreme Court.