Read what leading conservatives have to say
about the FMA

"It seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means
encompass authority over mere gun possession any more than it empowers the
Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals
throughout the 50 states. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such
matters to the individual States."
- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. vs. Lopez)

"The last great constitutional disaster was Prohibition. The 18th

was supposed to get Americans to stop drinking booze. People made
straight-line predictions that if you made hooch illegal, people would

drinking it. Some did. Many didn't. Go rent The Untouchables for the rest

the story."
- Jonah Goldberg, Editor-At-Large, National Review Online, Nov. 30, 2003,
The Philadelphia Inquirer

"Religious conservatives might consider banishing divorce and

not gay couples, in order to protect the sanctity of traditional religious
marriage."
- Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, Jan. 3,
2004, Boston Globe

"Marriage is a quintessential state issue.

- Former Senator Alan Simpson, R-W.Y., July 3, 2003, Newsweek,

- Jonathan Rauch, "The Marrying Kind: Why Social Conservatives Should
Support Same-Sex Marriage," May 2002, The Atlantic Monthly

- Robert George (Editorial Writer for the New York Post and frequent
Contributor to the National Review), July 14, 2001, CNN Take 5, CNN

"Kucinich4Prez" <dem3ring@circus.com> wrote in message
news:IZhNb.53651$nt4.83414@attbi_s51...

Babs, you ignorant *****, your subject line is completely inaccurate. The
MAJORITY of Americans, by a WIDE measure do NOT support a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage. They may not all agree with the concept of
gay marriage, but this does not mean that they support having discrimination
written into our constitution. Read what leading conservatives have to say
about the FMA


Conservative and GOP Quotes on Constitutional Amendment

"The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such
commitments [marriage]. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We
shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We
should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each
other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage fidelity."
- David Brooks, Nov. 22, 2003, New York Times

"I think the fact of the matter, of course, [same-sex relationship
recognition] is regulated by the states. I think different states are
likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't
think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to
be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those
relationships. And like [Senator] Joe [Lieberman], I also wrestle with the
extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I
think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever
kind of relationships people want to enter into."
- Vice President ***** Cheney, 2000 vice presidential debate


"I urge the conservatives supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment to
think again before they launch the ship of state on uncharted waters, to
seek other, readily available means to realize their agendas. This movement
will only deepen the fault lines in our fractured civic culture and weaken
its underpinnings. To do this in peacetime would be unwise; to prosecute it
in the midst of war is reckless."
- David Horowitz, Nov. 24, 2003, syndicated column

"I do not believe that amending the U.S. Constitution to invalidate all
legal protections for unmarried couples, gay or straight, is a way to
strengthen the American family. In fact, I believe that establishing such
an amendment only harms our American families. It is now more important
than ever to remember that families come in all shapes and sizes, and that
no family should be discriminated against. This issue should be discussed at
the state level and not at the federal level. In any case, I will not
support such an amendment that discriminates against American citizens, and
preempts state's rights."
- Representative Rob Simmons, Constituent letter dated July 15, 2003

"Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage,
President Bush will come under heavy pressure from right-wingers to endorse
a constitutional amendment banning such unions and make gay marriage a
'wedge issue' in the 2004 campaign. If he's anything like the 'compassionate
conservative' he claimed to be in 2000, he'll resist the temptation.
Ideally, he'd come out in favor of civil unions, as practically all of his
Democratic rivals have done."
- Morton M. Kondracke, Nov. 24, 2003, Roll Call

"The libertarian in me says: Civil union corrects an inequity in the law.
There should be no legal or economic discrimination against homosexuals
anywhere in the U.S. And what is lawful in Vermont or Massachusetts should
be recognized in every other state because we are one nation when it comes
to basic rights, popular statutes to the contrary notwithstanding."
- William Safire, Dec. 1, 2003, New York Times

"Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman
would be unwise for two reasons. Constitutionalizing social policy is
generally a misuse of fundamental law. And it would be especially imprudent
to end state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we require
evidence of the sort that can be generated by allowing the states to be
laboratories of social policy."
- Syndicated conservative commentator George Will, Nov. 30, 2003, Washington
Post

"It seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means
encompass authority over mere gun possession any more than it empowers the
Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals
throughout the 50 states. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such
matters to the individual States."
- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. vs. Lopez)

"There are two kinds of amendments. One kind would give the federal
government more authority, usually at the expense of the states, and broaden
its intrusion into the lives of its citizens. These include the failed Equal
Rights Amendment and the proposals to ban same sex marriages and abortion. I
favor neither of the latter two but I oppose constitutional amendments that
would ban them."
- Lyn Nofziger, Former White House Press Secretary and Assistant to
President Reagan, Oct. 24, 2003, Lyn Nofziger.com

"The last great constitutional disaster was Prohibition. The 18th Amendment
was supposed to get Americans to stop drinking booze. People made
straight-line predictions that if you made hooch illegal, people would stop
drinking it. Some did. Many didn't. Go rent The Untouchables for the rest of
the story."
- Jonah Goldberg, Editor-At-Large, National Review Online, Nov. 30, 2003,
The Philadelphia Inquirer

"People are far more comfortable with gay neighbors, friends and family than
they were seven years ago. The culture has moved on from fear to almost
excessive interest. The result is that the issue of same-sex marriage --
most specifically the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban it -- is
now dividing Republicans while uniting Democrats. That's one good reason the
president hasn't endorsed it so far. And if he's sensible about maintaining
his own electoral coalition, he won't."
- Conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan, Dec. 7, 2003, Washington Post

"Religious conservatives might consider banishing divorce and infidelity,
not gay couples, in order to protect the sanctity of traditional religious
marriage."
- Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, Jan. 3,
2004, Boston Globe

"Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he will oppose a federal amendment. 'I don't
think the Constitution was ever written and set up for those kinds of
amendments,' Hagel said. 'I think those kinds of issues are better left to
the states.'"
- Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., July 13, 2001, Omaha World Herald

"Marriage is a quintessential state issue. The Defense of Marriage Act goes
as far as is necessary in codifying the federal legal status and parameters
of marriage. A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly
intrusive and punitive. The 1996 act, for purposes of federal benefits,
defines "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, and then allows
states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
As any good federalist should recognize, this law leaves states the
appropriate amount of wiggle room to decide their own definitions of
marriage or other similar social compacts, free of federal meddling."
- Former Congressman Bob Barr, R-Ga., August 21, 2003, Washington Post

"I don't think [the Federal Marriage Amendment] is appropriate. I think
that minimizes the Constitution."
- Former Senator Alan Simpson, R-W.Y., July 3, 2003, Newsweek,

"Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be
much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not
marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a mistake that
is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and
participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond
cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the
anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the
routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled
friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why
they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out."
- Jonathan Rauch, "The Marrying Kind: Why Social Conservatives Should
Support Same-Sex Marriage," May 2002, The Atlantic Monthly

"I don't like the idea, frankly, of amending the Constitution. We on the
right are supposed to be against these - this seems like a conservative
version of the ERA."
- Robert George (Editorial Writer for the New York Post and frequent
Contributor to the National Review), July 14, 2001, CNN Take 5, CNN



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004

Which part(s) of "The marriage laws which only allow penis/vagina
marriage, discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of the
SEX/GENDER of the applicants" and sex discrimination is illegal are
you having a problem understanding?

The part where you imagine such laws even exist.

Here is the relevant US law: Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.

Note the "due process of law" part. In EVERY instance where Same
Sex Marriage cases have been heard before the highest courts of
states [due process], the courts have AGREED with petitioners that
the law discriminates.

US courts at several levels, including the SCOTUS, have ruled that
marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and the state can NOT abridge such
rights without showing a narrowly tailored, compelling state
interest.

In the cases that have been brought before the courts, no
representative of the state, despite being funded by millions of
taxpayer dollars, has been able to demonstrate a "narrowly tailored,
compelling state interest" in restricting same sex marriage [SSM].
Further, the UN Declaration of Human Rights - which is the law of
the land in the USA - lists marriage as a right.

Perhaps you might be able to demonstrate such a "Narrowly tailored,
compelling state interest" as to why SSM should not be permitted.
HINT: It's always been that way [appeal to tradition], marriage is
for procreation [infertile opposite sex couples are permitted to
marry], my holy book says [religion is irrelevant in a court of
law], and "it's icky" [personal opinion] are not admissible
arguments in a court of law.

Kucinich4Prez wrote:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@noSpamThanks.net> wrote:

<non alt.* groups trimmed>

Robert W Lawrence wrote:

If you want to change the definition of marriage to encompass you

behavior you will have to

convince a majority of Americans to do so-there is are no consitutional

issues here.

NEWS FLASH: Civil rights are NOT subject to a vote and do NOT

SECOND NEWS FLASH: Same-sex marriage is NOT a "civil right".

Amendment XIV
(1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a woman can marry a man yet a man cannot that violates equal
protection of the laws - the law behind civil rights.

--Jeff