"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," says the "Federal Marriage Amendment" a proposed constitutional amendment, introduced into the H ouse on Wednesday. Lead sponsor of the measure was conservative, Rep. Ronnie Shows, D-MS. Shows' proposed constitutional amendment, was drafted by an anti-gay religious right group, The Alliance for Marriage, AFM. Calling themselves a pro-family group, began a similar campaign about a year ago. AFM, Executive director, Matt Daniels, has been sending out a warning to who ever would listen, that homosexual activists are pressuring courts to impose same-sex marriage or civil unions on states. And it seems there were at least six pairs of ears that heeded his warning and are buying their message of bigotry and intolerance against gay .

 

AMA claims the Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable response to the crisis for our democratic society created by those, ( those being gay, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people that is), 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. However, it is acceptable for the AMA and six House members to force their agenda of anti-gay equality, down our throats. With the past years example of strong support of GLBT rights, benefits and protection from discrimination that was exhibited by voters at the ballot box.  And pending legislation, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA and the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act 2001(Formerly the Hate Crimes Prevention Act). AFM and their six House member counterparts, want to strip the rights of voters, individual states and our courts to support equality for GLBT's. Adding an amendment to the United States Constitution, stating marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and woman. the U.S. Constitution. It pre-empts court challenges and serves to prevent states from passing any legislation that would recognize marriage of same-sex couples  or civil unions nationwide , constitutionally banning gay marriages. It also would prevent the courts from requiring that spousal benefits be given to unmarried couples. Their unsubstantiated claims of an overwhelming cry from the public to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage from being degraded, is their sole motivating factor for proposing their constitutional amendment. I haven't seen anyone standing on a street corner or really any place else, who was crying out that we need to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage from being degraded, have you?

 

Please give us a break, do they think we all have the word stupid tattooed on our foreheads. Their actions are solely motivated by their desire to circumvent the rights of individual states, our court system, the public and most of all, of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens. And to promote their intolerance and anti-gay agenda. 

 

In my opinion, The Alliance for Marriage, Reps. Ronnie Shows, DO-MS, David Phelps, DO-Ill.; Ralph ME. Hall, D-Texas; Sue Wilkins Myrick, R-NO.C.; Jo Ann S. Davis, R-Va.; and Chris Cannon, R-Utah, are abusing the principles set forth in of our U.S. Constitution. By proposing a constitutional amendment that limits or denies a citizen or group of citizens certain, solely based on their religious beliefs. And that forces their religious beliefs on all citizens and denies them their right of to oppose such religious beliefs through our courts or by majority vote.

 

I propose a constitutional amendment that absolutely prohibits the use of one's religious beliefs as a basis for arguing against granting equality to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens in rights, benefits and protections. This would leave no other reason or argument what so ever for denying GLBT's equality. 1992 was the last time Congress passed a constitutional amendment. To pass a constitution amendment, is by no means a slam dunk, thank goodness. It requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment of it passage. Even if that happens, before a constitutional amendment can take effect, it still must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

 

It has only been a little over twenty-fours since the constitutional amendment was proposed and the number of its detractors have greatly out numbered supporters. It should not be a time for us to be complacent on this issue. Because, those who have the power, and continue to use it, to stall and keep pro-gay rights legislation from going any farther than their desk drawer. Surely, would make a point of pushing such a constitution amendment through, even if it gets bogged down in debate or kicked back to committee for lack of support. They would rather have anti-gay legislation on the table any day, while keeping any pro-gay type legislation locked up tight in their desk draw. With the political deal making that goes on, we can never feel safe as long as such legislation is still on the table and not in a drawer.