Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Antigay language tweaked in Federal Marriage Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 10:33 PM
Original message
Antigay language tweaked in Federal Marriage Amendment
Congressional supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage unveiled a change in their proposal Monday that they said would leave state legislatures with the unambiguous right to recognize civil unions. The deletion of five words, however, did nothing to lessen the opposition of Democratic critics of the proposed constitutional amendment. They responded by seeking an indefinite delay in a hearing set for Tuesday.

"This new language makes the intent of the legislation even clearer," said Colorado senator Wayne Allard, the amendment's leading advocate in the U.S. Senate. "To protect marriage in this country as the union between a man and a woman and to reinforce the authority of state legislatures to determine benefits issues related to civil unions or domestic partnerships."

"This is an attempt to change the Constitution from a vessel for freedom to a tool of discrimination," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. "For more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended to expand individual rights, not restrict them. No matter how you word it, this amendment discriminates against millions of Americans."

Said Dave Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats: "The new language, like the old, would prevent any court from ruling that LGBT people have a right to be treated equally under the law. This new language is a murky attempt to appear more moderate in order to increase support for the amendment. However, amending the U.S. Constitution is never a moderate measure, and the new language would create as much damage as the old."

Full Story:
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11776&sd=03/23/04
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, that makes it all better now, doesn't it!
I'm so inspired, I may join those Log Cabin boys! Just call me Cleopatra, "The Queen of Denial"

:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MMP Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Homosexuals can get married.
Take my ex-wife. she was married to me. Most female homosexuals that I have met have been married.

I think that the homosexuals attempting to redefine marriage with a republican house, senate, and president are masters of bad timing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Blacks can get married, just not to whites.
That's fair, isn't it?

Oh, it's not? Then why is it fair that a lesbian can get married, just not to another lesbian?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. "homosexuals attempting to redefine marriage"
Yes, how inappropriate of them to push for the Constitutional amendment!

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Insecure I take it?
I feel you are conveying bitterness over your experience. By what right do you believe it is right to deny homosexuals the right to marry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. As a gay man, I agree with you on the timing issue...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Gays are not "attempting to redefine marriage"
they are trying to expand the rights of marriage to all consenting, non-related adults. They are attempting to secure their equal rights under the law. This is no more "attempting to redefine marriage" than it was for the Lovings to fight for their right to marry, although bigots of that time also believed that it was an assault on the "definition of marriage".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. "Most female homosexuals that I have met have been married."
Edited on Tue Mar-23-04 07:53 AM by Cannikin
WTF?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC