This is the proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment

self ^ | 6/30/2003 | unk

[longtermmemmory]

"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."

[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.

[longtermmemmory]

I agree. This is why I posted this. The homosexuals already have websites up and running to oppose this. The are urging people to defend the supreme court. ( a court they were condemning two weeks ago) Time to push back.

[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?

[longtermmemmory]

this is the one that is pending. This is the only show in town.

[aristeides]

Tancredo?

[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]

[longtermmemmory]

what function do the states serve? Seriously, there is dubious benefit to the individual states.

[longtermmemmory]

what was your source for the house information? The homosexuals are going to target these people for anti family petition drives.

[finnman69]

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

[AntiGuv]

What function do the states serve? Seriously, there is dubious benefit to the individual states.

No doubt. We should abolish the States & have the President appoint Senators for life. We won't really have Governors anymore, per se, so that office should get renamed. I vote for Satraps, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Cabinet to ensure efficiency.

We should also do something about the inefficient duplication of a bicameral legislature. Without the need to campaign for office, the Senators should have more than enough time to handle all the United State's business..

[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

[ex-snook]

"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) "

States used to prohibit abortions too. If the SC did not legislate, this amendment would not be necessary. An amendment is the only way to restore Constitutional balance of powers.

[mvpel]

what function do the states serve? Seriously, there is dubious benefit to the individual states.

The fact that you're asking that question at all is indicative of how far away we've fallen from the Constitutional Republic that the founders established. I suggest that you read "The Federalist Papers" for starters to get an understanding as to what function the states are supposed to serve.