Federal Marriage Amendment

[13788]

NikkiSixx: Below is the complete text of the amendment, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)

HJ 56 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2003 Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

"Article --

"SECTION 1. 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."



Sign this petition to tell your elected officials not to support the Federal Marriage Amendment: http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

It's most likely a lot of hot air. It's iffy that it will get the two-thirds vote necessary in the House and very unlikely in the Senate. (Bush doesn't get a vote.) This is just Bush preaching to his conservative friends to make sure they don't stay home on election day. Most of Congress really doesn't want to have to deal with this in an election year, even among the members who oppose gay marriage. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[jay_too]

I find this pandering to the rabid right and their supposed sense of morality distasteful. I doubt if any mortal can know the mind of God; perhaps, a few have had a fleeting glimpse of some aspect of the cosmic mind.

Once the Republican Party stood for principles such as FEDERALISM and the rights of individuals. Today Republican leadership is attempting to usurp powers that have been vested in the individual states for almost 200 years. Why? They think they have identified a wedge issue - yep, another issue to divide the country. So much for Dubya's promise to unify the country. So how do you spell hypocracy?

jay

 

[jonb]

Jay, Jay, how many times do I have to tell you: States' rights only refers to their right to say blacks have to be able to read a dissertation on cold fusion written in Khalkha before they can vote while whites only have to read Go Dog Go.

As for gay marriage, I'm for it, but I still have to bap Peacenik (on usenet) for comparing the Cherokee not allowing gay marriage to mass genocide. Especially when, if they did, the government would simply choose not to recognize tribal marriages; meanwhile, Indians would become trophy same-sex partners since tribal governments can only marry citizens.

 

[KinkGuy]

The DMA as written, does remove the rights of states to determine the gay marriage issue. Fun fact: a movement to gain legislation in support of either "gay marriage" or "civil unions" was NOT on the agenda of either of the two largest gay political/legal action organizations. The Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund both tabled any federal level action for unions or marriage when the Senate, Legislature and White House all went to the republicans. So, it was the shrub administration who made this an election year issue to pacify the religious fundamentalists he owed favors to. The gay community has ALWAYS positioned the movement as a civil rights cause and I don't think any one ever intended to force any church or religious group into performing marriages counter to their doctrine. The bottom line has always been to gain the civil liberties automatically granted to heterosexual unions, whether religious or civil. All we ever want(ed) was to have the right to visit our spouses in the hospital, make medical decisions, inherit property, share insurance, grant life insurance benefits and on and on until you get to our willingness to pay the marriage penalty taxes everyone else gets to pay! Rant over....for now. This is a great group of folks! Thank you for the space.

 

[madame_zora]

Great rant, Kink, and you need a lot of space with that package!

 

[KinkGuy]

The amendment failed to gain even a simple majority in the Senate today (48-50) which reveals it didn't even carry the republican side of the room, and they are the majority. The vote looks "close" on the surface, but is many, many votes short of the required number to pass and be sent to the states. The House fight on the same subject starts next week. sigh.

 

[mindseye]

Hate to nitpick, but I think it's an important distinction:

The 48-50 vote was not even a vote on the amendment itself. This was what was called a "cloture" vote. A cloture vote is a vote to end debate on a matter.

Passing the amendment itself would have required 67 votes, but cloture requires only 60. Since the vote for cloture did not pass, no vote on the actual amendment may take place (since further debate on the matter is permitted).

Although the amendment may be reintroduced in 2005, for all practical purposes, this vote killed it.

Astute readers will notice that if the vote was 48-50, two senators must not have voted. I'm personally ashamed that John Kerry and John Edwards lacked the conviction to vote on the matter.

 

[KinkGuy]

Yes, but had the cloture vote been reversed today, the bill would have gone immediately to vote (so said the party) so they could get it into the states hands. Can not the cloture vote support sending the bill forward? This whole process has historically taken about 7 years. Am I wrong?

 

[mindseye]

If a cloture vote (literally, "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?") passes, then the Vice President (or in his absence, the President pro tempore) is required to bring the debate to a close. Limited debate may follow (and the rules are somewhat complicated for what is allowed after this point, but Senators who have not yet had a chance to speak at all on the matter must be permitted ten minutes of floor time.) But once cloture passes, the Senate is required to bring the debate to a close and vote on the amendment before any other business may take place.

 

[KinkGuy]

But was I right in saying that had the numbers been reversed, the matter would have gone on to a full vote? ???? :blink:

I just knew sleeping through Civics was going to bite me in the ass one of these days.

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[KinkGuy]

Funny then that the United States Senate chose not to pursue this line of questionable and immoral line of legislation. Yes, I know tender, you think faggots are all immoral...maybe we are...but I refer only to ammending the U.S. Constitution to make it divisive (look it up) as an immoral act. :angry:

 

[MisterMark]

Get real, Tender. Kerry WOULD have voted against the amendment, if given the opportunity. You seem to think that the majority should always rule. That ain't the way this country works - maybe you didn't realize that. If everything was up to the majority, there would still be "colored drinking fountains" in places like Alabama and Mississippi. Thank goodness that we do have representatives and judges who have the guts to stand up for justice, even if it's not what the majority of Americans want.

 

[jay_too]

Well said, Mark.

And once upon a time we had courageous Attorney Generals such as Eisenhower's Brownell and Bobby Kennedy. They broke down the doors of separate and unequal education.

jay

 

[madame_zora]

Great point, Mark. Looks like you got through.

 

[jay_too]

Tonight on Washington Week it was pointed out the in the 2000 Campaign Candidate Bush stated his opposition to a Consititutional Amendment. Four years later, he actively supports one. Is this a flip flop? Surely not.

jay

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by jay_too@Jul 17 2004, 04:11 AM
Tonight on Washington Week it was pointed out the in the 2000 Campaign Candidate Bush stated his opposition to a Consititutional Amendment. Four years later, he actively supports one. Is this a flip flop? Surely not.

jay

I think it's a pretty clear sign that, deep down, Bush doesn't care about the issue. Like many politicians, his stance depends on what will get/keep him in office at the time. In 2000, he wanted to look like a moderate while he winked at the far right. In 2004, he knows that most moderate voters oppose gay marriage, so he opposes it.