http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=9794
KENNEDY STATEMENT ON RESOLUTION AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO BAN
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Congressional Desk
The Congressional Desk provides information, news releases, and
announcements obtained from communication and public relations offices.
Congressional Desk
May 18, 2006
It?s no wonder that polls these days show public support for the Republican
Senate is in the ditch. Instead of dealing with the real challenges facing
the nation, the Republican Leadership insists on pandering to its far-right
wing by this misguided proposal to deny some members of our society the
right to marry and receive the same benefits and protections that married
couples now have.
This so-called Federal Marriage Amendment should really be called the
Republican Right Wing Anti-Marriage Amendment. A vote for it is a vote
against civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other efforts by states to
treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law. It?s a vote to impose
discrimination on all 50 states, and deny them their right to interpret
their own state constitutions and state laws. A vote for this amendment is
a vote for bigotry ? pure and simple. It makes no sense for the first time
in our history, to amend the Constitution by writing discrimination back
into it.
The proposed Amendment is inconsistent with our basic values. The
Constitution is the foundation of our democracy and the enduring principles
of our nation. We?ve amended the Constitution only seventeen times since
the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Aside from the Amendment on
Prohibition, which was quickly recognized as a mistake and repealed
thirteen years later, the Constitution has only been amended to expand and
protect people?s rights, not to take away or restrict those rights.
Across the country, more and more children have same-sex parents. It is
wrong for Congress to add another burden to these families struggling to
live their lives and take care of each other. Citizens in this country
believe in tearing down the walls of discrimination. We should be expanding
protections, not creating new barriers for civil rights.
Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples under
state law, including the right to be treated fairly by the tax laws, to
share insurance coverage, to visit loved ones in the hospital, and to have
health benefits, family leave benefits, and the many other benefits that
automatically flow from marriage. In fact, there are more than a thousand
federal rights and benefits based on marriage and all families deserve
equality.
Clearly, there is no need to amend the U.S. Constitution on this issue.
Each state should be allowed to decide the issue for itself. Marriage and
other issues of family law have always been matters of state sovereignty.
For two centuries, laws on marriage have been for each state to resolve,
and are solidly rooted in the enduring principles of federalism. The states
are already engaged in vigorous debates about the issue. Across the
country, Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and
Wisconsin are all holding statewide referendums on constitutional
amendments to ban same-sex marriage this year.
The American Bar Association opposes this Senate Amendment. As the ABA has
clearly stated, ?Congress should not rush to judgment and use the
constitutional amendment process to impose on the states a rigid viewpoint
regarding a controversial issue of great consequence to this nation.?
Marriage is a solemn commitment to plan a future together, to share in
life?s celebrations, to be a source of comfort to ease life?s burdens and
pains. These are real families with real-life struggles, and the Senate
should reject any effort to undermine the progress we?ve made.
I?m proud that Massachusetts continues to be a leader on marriage equality
for our citizens. We recognize that being part of a family is a basic
right, and I look forward to the day when every state accepts this basic
principle of fairness.
In upholding same-sex marriage, our Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the
Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. Nearly 7,000
same-sex couples have married in the state in the past two years. Those who
oppose gay marriage and disagree with what happened in Massachusetts have a
First Amendment right to express their views. But there?s no justification
for undermining the separation of church and state in our society, or to
write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.
Supporters of the amendment claim that religious freedom is somehow under
attack. But no court, no state, no Congress can tell any church or
religious group how to conduct its affairs. The separation of church and
state under the First Amendment is not affected in any way by what
Massachusetts and other states are doing.
The law of each state is what determines the legal and civil effects of
marriages and civil unions. The law of each church is what determines the
religious aspects of a sacramental marriage. No church in Massachusetts has
been required to do anything it doesn?t wish to do. The true threat to
religious freedom is this Anti-Marriage Amendment itself ? it tells
churches that they cannot recognize a same-sex marriage, even though many
churches are now choosing to do so.
The Senate should be addressing the real problems facing our country.
Instead of writing bigotry and prejudice into the Constitution, we should
be dealing with the issues of war and peace, jobs and the economy, the
crisis over energy, and the many other priorities facing the country. It?s
wrong for the Republican leadership to try to write its agenda of hate into
the Constitution. I urge the committee to oppose this disgraceful and
unseemly amendment.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
