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."

[aristeides]

Jeffrey Rosen, legal editor of The New Republic, considers Lawrence worse than Roe. Here's what he has to say about gay marriage:

The most unsettling implication of the Court's expansive new right of sexual autonomy relates to the question of gay marriage. Justice O'Connor tried to preserve laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples by announcing tersely that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest. But as Justice Scalia was quick to observe, "'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples." Since allowing homosexuals to marry has no impact at all on the willingness of heterosexuals to marry, it's hard to think of a reason for courts to avoid extending the Court's new right to "define the meaning" of intimate relations to include a right of all people to marry, regardless of their sex. Of course, the arguments on behalf of a judicially created right of gay marriage--whether located in the right to equality or the right to privacy--are not frivolous. But they are also not constitutionally restrained--not well rooted, that is, in text, history, or tradition. For the Court so glibly to put its finger on the scales of favoring a judicially created right to gay marriage, in a case where this sort of activism was unnecessary, seems cavalier in the extreme. And, as a pragmatic matter, defenders of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians will rue the day that lower courts begin to follow the example of their Canadian counterparts and recognize a right of gay marriage on a national scale. For the political backlash against a judicially created right to gay marriage would be so swift and dramatic--at least in the immediate future--that it would set back the cause of gay and lesbian equality rather than advancing it.

[longtermmemmory]

Go to the very last committee and its the constitution

these are the people with the first line on this.

Looking for information to the location of the pending bill.

 

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 Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Mr. Lamar Smith, Chairman
B-351A Rayburn HOB, Tel: 202-225-5741
Mr. Henry Hyde	Mr. Howard Berman
Mr. Elton Gallegly	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bob Goodlatte	Mr. Rick Boucher
Mr. William Jenkins	Ms. Zoe Lofgren
Mr. Spencer Bachus	Ms. Maxine Waters
Mr. Mark Green	Mr. Martin Meehan
Mr. Ric Keller	Mr. William Delahunt
Ms. Melissa Hart	Mr. Robert Wexler
Mr. Mike Pence	Ms. Tammy Baldwin
Mr. J. Randy Forbes	Mr. Anthony Weiner
Mr. John Carter
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Mr. John N. Hostettler, Chairman
B-370B Rayburn HOB, Tel: 202-225-5727
Mr. Jeff Flake	Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee
Mrs. Marsha Blackburn	Ms. Linda Sanchez
Mr. Lamar Smith	Ms. Zoe Lofgren
Mr. Elton Gallegly	Mr. Howard Berman
Mr. Chris Cannon	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Steve King
Ms. Melissa Hart
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Mr. Chris Cannon, Chairman
B353 Rayburn HOB, Tel: 202-225-2825
Mr. Howard Coble	Mr. Melvin Watt
Mr. Jeff Flake	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. John Carter	Ms. Tammy Baldwin
Mrs. Marsha Blackburn	Mr. William Delahunt
Mr. Steve Chabot	Mr. Anthony Weiner
Mr. Tom Feeney
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Mr. Howard Coble, Chairman
207 Cannon HOB, Tel: 202-225-3926
Mr. Tom Feeney	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Bob Goodlatte	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Steve Chabot	Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Mark Green	Ms. Maxine Waters
Mr. Ric Keller	Mr. Martin Meehan
Mr. Mike Pence
Mr. J. Randy Forbes
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

 

[Torie]

First, Safire take the privacy bait snake oil and swallows it whole (if this was a privacy decision, I would be at ease), and then moves right along to marriage without ever realizing that marriage has nothing to do with privacy. Safire's best days are long since past him. The man's mental gears are not shifting very seamlessly anymore.

[aristeides]

Lot of gays in Nadler's district, I would imagine.

[Ken H]

Would this work?

Marriage in the United States and in each State shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

[aristeides]

Chabot, on the other hand, is quite a reliable conservative.

[Torie]

No, that is the same as putting it in the Constitution, which preempts the issue. I want my fair shake in the public square on this puppy, as do those who are on the other side.

[aristeides]

Allows a Supreme Court end run by forcing the states to confer the legal incidents of marriage on same-sex couples.

[bribriagain]

"Lot of gays in Nadler's district, I would imagine."

Nadler is a homo.

[Antoninus]

This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

Please. The states have never had to define what "marriage" is until very recently either. The whole notion that we need to do so is ridiculous and this outrageous situation must be laid at the feet of the homo-promo lobby where it belongs.

That said, I favor putting this Amendment in writing in the highest possible jurisdiction we have available to us in this nation and on this earth--the U.S. Constitution. I'm tired of screwing around with this phony homo cr@p.

[jwalsh07]

Rosen's article was pretty good. He is one of the few who understands that the court has learned nothing, zip, nada from the aftermath of Roe.

He must be reading our stuff! LOL

[Antoninus]

What a waste of time. Just a silly distraction from the real issues that face our nation.

Hey, if that's the way you feel, I'm sure you'll want to place the blame for this insanity exactly where it belongs: on the homo pressure groups and the rogue Supreme Court justices.

We didn't cause this idiotic situation. We're trying to restore sanity.

[aristeides]

Nadler is a homo.

He's married. So if you're right, I take it he's closeted. No telling how that would affect his vote on this: he could be blackmailed; on the other hand, he might be terrified of having his vote reveal his secret. On balance, I think he'll go with his voters.

[Antoninus]

How do we handle, say, the marriage of two men in Belguim or Denmark?

We treat it like the fiction it is. Would we recognize a 19th century Muslim Pasha and his 26 wives if he came to this country?

[longtermmemmory]

This is what the left is saying: Note this representatives efforts to santify homosexual efforts to get into the united states.

:
CONGRESSMAN ELIOT ENGEL
17th District, New York
3655 Johnson Avenue, Bronx, NY 10463 - 718 796-9700
2303 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 - 202 225-2464

---

Contact: Gary C. Meltz 202-225-2464 For release:May 16, 2002

ENGEL DENOUNCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO OUTLAW SAME-SEX UNIONS

Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) released the following statement:
"I am deeply saddened by the introduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment" said Rep. Eliot Engel. "I thought that we had left the politics of hate and division behind us in the last century. At a time when we have thousands of children caught up in a terrible foster care system and thousands of loving gay, lesbian, and unmarried heterosexual families willing to adopt, legislation like this serves no purpose. I will strongly oppose this amendment to the Constitution."

The Federal Marriage Amendment is a constitutional amendment that will prevent the federal and state governments or any court from giving recognition to same-sex marriages and marital benefits to unmarried couples. The amendment could deprive gay families of fundamental protections such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and health care benefits.

The Federal Marriage Amendment says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman....Neither this [C]onstitution 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."

Rep. Engel is the author of a resolution supporting the National Day of Silence, and proud cosponsor of the Employment Non-discrimination Act (Shays/Frank), the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (Nadler), the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (Frank), and the State Regulation of Marriage is Appropriate Act (Frank).

[Torie]

Well, Nadler is married under a presumably pre-existing statute. Of course, that is not dispositive. Still, try to constrain yourself.

[Dr Warmoose]

Define "man." Define "woman."

I think that there was a lower court decision once on this matter. It had to do with chromosomes XX vs XY. Apparently there was some question about some doofus that mutilated his genitals so that it resembled that of a woman. The judge ruled not on genitalia, but on the genes.

This whole topic is downright perverted.

[aristeides]

If Engel can say that from his working-class Bronx-Westchester district, you can bet Nadler will say far worse.

[jwalsh07]

My goal is to preserve states privileges, constraining judicial activism, as exemplified by Lawrence and Roe, and keeping the institution of marriage defined as that of the union between one man and one woman.

Torie's goals are probably coincident in the first two cases but contrary in the third.

So the goal is to come up with language that would satisfy us both and put the debate where it belongd, with the people and the states they inhabit.

[longtermmemmory]

NOTE the date on this release. Start Freeping the reps!

Press Release CONTACT: Aaron Johnson
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (202) 225-4676
May 22, 2003
Musgrave Amendment Strengthens Marriage
Congresswoman introduces bill to protect America´s values

Washington, DC: Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04) today introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage and amend the Constitution of the United States to clearly state its definition. Musgrave´s bill has already gained bi-partisan support, with three Republicans and three Democrats signed as co-sponsors.

"Marriage and family are the most important institutions in existence. Unfortunately they have come under attack." said Musgrave. "The traditional values Americans hold are being traded in for counterfeit marital unions. It is important to secure this institution and protect it from distortion."

The time-honored institution of marriage, considered a lifelong union between a woman and a man, has come under fire. For instance, in recent court cases in Hawaii and Alaska, judges abandoned years of social and legal precedent and began recognizing "civil unions" or "same-sex unions" as de facto marriages. In the state of Vermont, the legislature passed a measure allowing same-sex couples to join in a marital union, even those residing in other states.

As a result, a need has been created for the American people to decide on the issue, and Musgrave´s Amendment begins this process. Once passed in Congress, the proposed Amendment to the Constitution would need ratification throughout the state legislatures before becoming law.

Musgrave´s Federal Marriage Amendment states, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." In addition, it empowers the states to determine on their own whether to accept counterfeit marriages, or "civil unions," that occurred elsewhere as legally binding, and not commit them to a full faith and credit clause.

"Marriage as an institution is on the verge of being destroyed by an extreme movement that scraps hundreds of years of precedent based on traditional families," said Musgrave. "This bill will help protect marriage as it has been traditionally known."

# # #

Marilyn Musgrave was elected to the United States House of Representatives in January 2003, and she represents Colorado´s Fourth Congressional District. Musgrave is a member of the House Committees on Agriculture, Education and the Workforce, and Small Business. To learn more about Rep. Musgrave please visit her official website at http://www.house.gov/musgrave.