The Marriage Protection Amendment
ALSO: IMPORTANT SENATE VOTE / MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT / IMPORTANT
HOUSE VOTE
THE JUNE 26 SUPREME COURT DECISION-
In a 6-3 ruling on June 28, the US. Supreme Court not only struck
down laws against sodomy in Texas and 12 other states, but its decision
"effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," the
dissenting justices wrote. That is major news in the United States of
America!
Regardless of which side you stand on, you will want to read this
report.
The campaign to protect marriage in the United States Constitution
has gained momentum in the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling that
some observers say could pave the way for homosexual unions.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Fist (R.-Tenn.) and others have endorsed,
or reiterated, their endorsement of, the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Reintroduced in May by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R.-Colo.), the measure
would limit marriage to "the union of a man and a woman." It
also would prevent federal and state constitutions and laws from being
Interpreted to mandate marriage or its benefits for homosexuals and
other unmarried people.
"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that
sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union
between what (has) traditionally in our Western values been defined as
between a man and a woman," said Fist on ABC's "This
Week" program June 29, according to The Washington Times. "So
I would support the amendment."
Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land and others restated their
support for the FMA after the high court struck down a Texas law against
same-sex sexual relations.
"This decision once again focuses attention on the desperate and
immediate need for the Federal Marriage Amendment in order to keep the
courts from forcing gay 'marriage' on the public the same way it is
forcing the legalization of homosexual behavior on an unwilling
public," Land said June 30.
Regarding the amazing US. Supreme Court June 28 decision, Associate
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Laws against fornication, bigamy,
adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity" cannot survive
the justices' reasoning in the decision. "Today's opinion
dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions.
Insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral
disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest
for purposes of proscribing that conduct . , what justification could
there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual
couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution.' "
In the court's opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said
"people 'are entitled to respect for their private lives' and the
state 'cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making
their private sexual conduct a crime.'"
"What's going to happen when an adult male brings a case saying
that he is practicing a consensual sexual relationship with his
biological adult sister, i.e. Incest? On what grounds, given this
opinion by Justice Kennedy, will the Supreme Court uphold laws against
adult biological incest? The court has opened a Pandora's box that is
going to be very difficult to contain," Land said.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and
Justice, told the New York Times, "We all were surprised by the
scope and breadth of the opinion. It was a grand-slam homer for the
other side."
THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT-The Federal Marriage Amendment,
H.R. Res. 88, says: "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."
Proponents of the FMA say the Lawrence decision is only one of
several reasons such a constitutional amendment is needed.
Many legal observers expect the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
to soon rule that there is a right in the state constitution for
homosexuals to marry. If so, under the federal constitution, other
states may have to recognize such "marriages" performed in
Massachusetts.
Vermont already has legalized same-sex unions that include nearly all
the benefits of marriage.
Recently, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario
legalized civil marriage for homosexuals. The Canadian government
announced it would not appeal the decision.
Congress adopted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, to
protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages
performed in another state. Supporters of the FMA, however, fear a court
may strike down at least some applications of the DOMA, as well as state
laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. They also say the
amendment is needed because the DOMA does not bar courts from
recognizing same-sex unions entered into overseas by American citizens.
While the amendment would preclude judges from forcing "civil
unions" and same-sex marriage-like benefits upon states, it would
not prevent state legislatures from continuing to make such decisions.
It also would not affect employee benefits provided by private
businesses.
The amendments supporters face a daunting task in order for it to
become part of the Constitution. An amendment requires approval by
two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate, as well as
ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by
conventions in three-fourths of the states.
The Most Important Senate Vote in 2004
Everyone in America is gradually joining one side or the other in the
liberal debate over abortion, homosexuality, etc. The recent attempt to
enact a Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Senate was pivotal. And every
U.S. senator well-understood the issue: Either vote "Yes,"
in order to protect marriage as being only between one man and one
woman, or "No," which would permit the liberal courts of
America to declare that homosexuals could also marry. Both sides
brought very strong pressure to bear on each senator; so much so that,
by this one vote on the July 14 motion, to terminate filibuster, each
senator stated on which side he stood in the conservative-liberal battle
in America.
Therefore, that vote is given below. (1) Those of our readers who
favor the strengthening of homosexual rights in America, and related
liberal positions, will appreciate senators who voted "No"
("Nay"). (2) Those of our readers who wish to protect the
traditional view of marriage, and related conservative issues, will
appreciate those who voted "Yes" ("Yea").
(A vote of 60 (3/5s) was needed to close debate ("cloture")
in order to proceed to the vote. A vote of 67 (2/3s) was needed for the
U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Amendment.) Here is the
official PUBLIC Senate record for all Americans to read:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session, as compiled
by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the
Senate.
Vote Summary: Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to
Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. J. Res. 40). Vote
Number: 155. Vote Date: July 14, 2004, 12:13 PM. Required
For Majority: 3/5. Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected. Vote
Counts: YEAs 48. NAYs 50. Not Voting 2.
GROUPED BY VOTE POSITION
YEAs -48
Alexander (R-TN) / Allard (R-CO) / Allen (R-VA) / Bennett (RUT) /
Bond (R-MO) / Brownback (R-KS) / Bunning (R-KY) / Burns (R-MT) / Byrd
(D-WV) / Chambliss (R-GA) / Cochran (RMS) / Coleman (R-MN) / Comyn
(R-TX) / Craig (R-ID) / Crapo (R-ID) / DeWine (R-OH) / Dole (R-NC) /
Domenici (R-NM) / Ensign (R-NV) / Enzi (R-WY) / Fitzgerald (R-IL) I Fnst
(R-TN) / Graham (R-S C) I Grassley (R-IA) / Gregg (R-NH) / Hagel (R-NE)
/ Hatch (R-UT) / Hutchison (R-TX) / Inhofe (R-OK) / Kyl (R-AZ) / Lott
(R-MS) / Lugar (R-IN) / McConnell (R-KY) / Miller (DGA) / Murkowski
(R-AK) / Nelson (D-NE) / Nickles (R-OK) / Roberts (R-KS) / Santorum
(R-PA) / Sessions (R-AL) / Shelby (R-AL) / Smith (R-OR) / Specter (R-PA)
/ Stevens (R-AK) / Talent (R-MO) / Thomas (R-WY) / Voinovich (R-OH) /
Warner (R-VA) /.
NAYs -50
Akaka (D-HI) / Baucus (D-MT) / Bayh (D-IN) / Biden (D-DE) / Bingaman
(D-NM) /Boxer (D-CA) / Breaux (D-LA) / Campbell (R-CO) / Cantwell (D-WA)
I Carper (D-DE) / Chafee (R-RI) / Clinton (D-NY) / Collins (R-ME) /
Conrad (D-ND) / Corzine (DNJ) / Daschle (D-SD) / Dayton (D-MN) / Dodd
(D-CT) / Dorgan (D-ND) / Durbin (D-IL) / Feingold (D-WI) / Feinstein
(D-CA) /
Graham (D-FL) / Harkin (D-IA) / Hollings (D-SC) / Inouye (DHI) /
Jeffords (I-VT) / Johnson (D-SD) / Kennedy (D-MA) / Kohl (D-WI) /
Landrieu (D-LA) / Lautenberg (D-NJ) / Leahy (D-VT) / Levin (D-MI) /
Lieberman (D-CT) / Lincoln (D-AR) / McCain (R-AZ) / Mikulski (D-MD) /
Murray (D-WA) / Nelson (D-FL) / Pryor (D-AR) / Reed (D-RI) / Reid (D-NV)
/ Rockefeller (D-W V) / Sarbanes (D-MD) / Schumer (D-NY) / Snowe (R-ME)
/ Stabenow (D-MI) / Sununu (R-NH) / Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 2 Edwards (D-NC) / Kerry (D-MA) [afraid to vote]
GROUPED BY HOME STATE
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea / Shelby (R-AL), Yea / Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea / Stevens (R-AK), Yea / Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea /
McCain (R-AZ), Nay / Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay / Pryor (D-AR), Nay /
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay / Feinstein (D-CA), Nay / Colorado: Allard
(R-CO), Yea / Campbell (R-CO), Nay / Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay /
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay / Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay / Carper (D-DE), Nay
/ Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay / Nelson (D-FL), Nay / Georgia: Chambliss
(R-GA), Yea / Miller (D-GA), Yea / Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay / Inouye
(D-HI), Nay / Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea / Crapo (R-ID), Yea / Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Nay / Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea / Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay
/ Lugar (RIN), Yea / Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea / Harkin (D-IA), Nay /
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea / Roberts (R-KS), Yea / Kentucky: Bunning
(R-KY), Yea / McConnell (R-KY), Yea / Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Nay /
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay / Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay / Snowe (R-ME), Nay /
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay / Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay / Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-a4A), Nay / Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting / Michigan: Levin
(D-MI), Nay / Stabenow (D-MI), Nay / Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea
/Dayton (D-MN), Nay / Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea / Lott (R-MS),
Yea / Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea / Talent (R-MO), Yea / Montana: Baucus
(D-MT), Nay / Burns (R-MT), Yea / Nebraska: Hagel (RNE), Yea / Nelson
(D-NE), Yea / Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea / Reid (D-NV), Nay / New
Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH ), Yea I Sununu (R-NH), Nay / New Jersey: Corzine
(D-NJ), Nay / Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay / New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
/ Domenici (R-NM), Yea / New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay / Schumer (D-NY),
Nay / North Carolina: Dole (R-NC), Yea / Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting /
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay / Dorgan (D-ND), Nay / Ohio: De Wine
(R-OH), Yea / Voinovich (R-OH), Yea / Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea /
Nickles (R-OK), Yea / Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea / Wyden (DOR), Nay /
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea / Specter (RPA), Yea / Rhode Island:
Chafee (R-RI), Nay / Reed (D-RI), Nay / South Carolina: Graham (R-SC),
Yea / Hollings (D-SC), Nay / South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Nay / Johnson
(D-SD), Nay / Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea / Frist (R-TN), Yea /
Texas: Comyn (R-TX), Yea / Hutchison (R-TX), Yea / Utah: Bennett (RUT),
Yea / Hatch (R-UT), Yea / Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Nay / Leahy (D-VT),
Nay / Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea / Warner (RVA), Yea / Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay / Murray (DWA), Nay /West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV),
Yea / Rockefeller (DWV), Nay / Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay / Kohl
(D-WI), Nay / Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea / Thomas (R-WY), Yea
The Marriage Protection Act
The problem with the Marriage Protection Amendment is that it
requires a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. As indicated by
the July 14 Senate vote (page 2 of this report), it is unlikely that a
two-thirds vote will be obtained in the Senate.
The Marriage Protection Act would nicely solve the problem, by a
simple Congressional majority. It is sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler
(R-Indiana, 8th). Here are the facts about this:
The Marriage Protection Act is an insurance policy that will protect
the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from reckless federal judges who
exceed their authority. It invokes procedures spelled out in the
Constitution to withdraw from the federal courts jurisdiction over cases
that might arise under DOMA.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996 to
accomplish two purposes: First, it defined marriage "for all
purposes of federal law" as the union of one man and one woman.
Second, it protected states, under the Constitution's "full faith
and credit" clause, from being forced to recognize as a marriage
any "union" other than that of one man and one woman. (This
presumes that one or more states would legalize phony
"marriages.") The problem was that, since 1998, civil courts
in America have been overturning DOMA.
The purpose of the Marriage Protection Act is this: It would prevent
federal courts from hearing any case challenging the right of Congress
to prescribe that the "full faith and credit" clause may not
be used to force a state to recognize a pseudomarriage performed in
another state.
What then would happen to those cases? Cases that arise under the
"full faith and credit" clause will be decided in state
courts, which is exactly what Congress intended under DOMA. Again, even
a bad court decision would have limited impact and could not set a
precedent that would redefine marriage for the whole country.
Would the Marriage Protection Act have any effect on state matters?
It would not affect the states at all (nor does DOMA); so it will have
no effect on challenges to state marriage laws currently in progress in
Massachusetts (Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health), New Jersey
(Lewis vs. Harris) and Indiana (Morrison vs. Sadler). But even if one of
those cases should result in the establishment of same-sex unions, the
Marriage Protection Act would guarantee that this tragic decision could
not be exported to other states via the federal courts. How does the
Marriage Protection Act compare to a federal marriage amendment?
A constitutional amendment would probably be required to prevent a
state from redefining marriage. Passing a constitutional amendment,
however, requires two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the
Senate, plus ratification by three fourths of the states. The Marriage
Protection Act requires only simple majorities in both Houses of
Congress plus a presidential signature. Amending the Constitution is a
long-term process; but the Marriage Protection Act can provide immediate
protection against the most imminent threat to the definition of
marriage -judicial overreaching.
Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute declared:
"Homosexual activists have threatened to go to federal court to
have DOMA struck down. H.R. 3313 (The Marriage Protection Act) tells
federal judges to keep their hands off this vital piece of federal
law." And as for those lawmakers who still argue marriage
protection legislation is unnecessary at this time, he had this analogy
about the great Chicago fire. "We're told by prohomosexual
lawmakers that we should just wait until a federal judge dispenses with
DOMA."
Phil Burress, president of the Cincinnati-based Citizens for
Community Values, notes that during the debate only one senator -
Massachusetts' Ted Kennedy - voiced support for homosexual marriage.
"That, alone, is huge," Burress says. He added that most of
the other opposing senators confirmed their support for traditional
marriage but did not feel the issue was serious enough to justify a
constitutional amendment. In addition, many of those who ultimately
voted against cloture stated they would support an amendment measure if
DOMA - at either the federal or state level - were to be struck down by
a judge. Burress expects that to occur somewhere down the road soon.
"That was a concession that I did not expect," Burress says in
reference to the senators' qualified endorsement of the amendment idea.
Consequently, he is optimistic 67 Senate votes for a Federal Marriage
Amendment is attainable. "I feel confident that we will have no
problem getting the 19 votes that will turn this around," he says.
On July 22, the House of Representatives approved the Marriage
Protection Act by a very large majority (see next page).
Regardless of which side you may be on in this battle over marriage,
the information in this report is indeed significant, and of vital
importance, to every American.
The Most Important House Vote in 2004
The House of Representatives has passed the Marriage Protection Act
by a vote of 295-194 July 22, preventing federal courts from legalizing
same-sex "marriage" nationwide. Following is how
representatives voted on the bill, HR 9919. The bill will not become law
unless the Senate also approves it, which may not happen. Nevertheless.
the House vote, on this bill is extremely revealing.
The bill protects states by preventing federal courts - including the
Supreme Court -- from reviewing the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996
law that gives individual states the option of not recognizing another
state's same-sex "marriages" and prevents the federal
government from recognizing homosexual "marriage."
By their votes, you will clearly know on which side everyone stands
in regard to one of the most controversial political issues in our time.
It is considered a test vote on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment,
which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
THOSE WHO VOTED FOR THE BILL
Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Bachus, Baker, Ballenger, Barrett (SC),
Bartlett (MD), Barton (TX), Beauprez, Berry, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT),
Blackburn, Blunt, Boehlert, Boehner, Bonilla, Bonner, Boozman, Boucher,
Boyd, Bradley (NH), Brady (TX), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite (Ginny),
Burgess, Burns, Burr, Burton (Ill), Buyer, Calvert, Camp, Cannon,
Cantor, Capita, Carson (OK), Carter, Chabot, Chandler, Choeola, Cable,
Cole, Costello, Cox, Cramer, Crane, Crenshaw, Cubin, Culberson,
Cunningham, Davis (TN), Davis (Jo Ann), Davis (Tbm), Deal (GA), DeLay,
DeMint, DiazBalart (L.), Diaz-Balart (M.), Doolittle, Dreier, Duncan,
Dunn, Edwards, Ehlers, Emerson, Everett, Feeney, Ferguson, Flake, Fbrbes,
Fbssella, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gibbons
Gillmor, Gingrey, Goode, Goodlatte, Gordon, Goss, Granger, Graves, Green
(WI). Gutknecht, Hall, Harris, Hart, Hastert, Hastings (WA), Hayes,
Hayworth, Hefley, Hensarling, Herger, Herseth. Hobson, Hoekstra, Holden,
Hostettler, Hulshof, Hunter, Hyde, Isakson, Issa, Istook, Jenkins, John,
Johnson (IL), Johnson (Sam), Jones (NC), Kelley, Kelly, Kennedy (MN),
King (IA), King (NY). Kingston, Kline, Knollenberg. LaHood, Latham,
LaTburette, Lewis (CA), Lewis (KY), Linder, LoBlondo, Lucas (KY), Lucas
(OK), Manzullo, Marshall, Matheson, McCotter, McCrary, McHugh, McInnis,
McIntyre, McKeon, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Miller, Gary Moran
(KS), Murphy, Musgrave, Myrick, Nethercutt. Neugebauer, Ney, Northup,
Norwood, Nunes, Nussle, Osborne, Otter, Oadey, Pearce, Pence, Peterson
(MN), Peterson (PA), Petri, Pickering, Pitts, Platte. Pombo, Porter,
Portman,
Pryce (OH), Putnam, Radanovich, Rahall, Ramstad, Regula, Rehberg,
Renzi, Reynolds, Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher,
Ross, Royce, Ryan (WI), Ryun (KS), Sandlin, Saxton, Schrock,
Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shaw, Sherwood, Shimkus, Shuster,
Simpson, Skelton, Smith (MI), Smith (NJ), Smith (TX), Souder, Stearns,
Stenhoim, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tancredo, Tanner, Tauzin, Taylor (MS),
Taylor (NC), Terry, Thomas, Thornberry, Tiahrt, Tiberl, Toomey, Turner
(OH), Turner (TX), Upton, Vitter, Walden (OR), Walsh, Wamp, Weldon (FL),
Weldon (PA), Weller, Whitfield, Wicker, Wilson (NM), Wilson (SC), Wolf,
Young (AK), Young (FL).
THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST THE BILL.
Abercromble, Ackerman, Allen, Andrews, Baca, Baird, Baldwin, Bass,
Becerra, Bell, Bereuter, Berkley, Berman, Biggert, Bishop (GA), Bishop
(NY), Blumenauer, Bono, Boswell, Brady (PA), Brown (OH), Brown
(Corrine), Butterfield, Capps, Capuano, Cardin, Cerdoza, Case, Castle,
Clay, Clyburn, Conyers, Cooper, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (AL), Davis
(CA), Davis (FL), Davis (IL), DeFhzlo, DeGette, Delahunt, DeLauro,
Deutsch, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Dooley (CA), Doyle, Emanuel, Engel,
English, Eshoo, Etheridge, Evans, Farr, Fattah, Miner, Foley, Ford,
Frank (MA), Frost, Gephardt, Gerlach, Gilchrest, Gonzalez, Green (TX),
Grijalva, Gutierrez, Harman, Hastings (FL), Hill, Hinchey, Hinojosa,
Hoeffel, Holt, Honda, Hooley (OR), Houghton, Hoyer, Inslee, Israel,
Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Jefferson, Johnson (CT), Johnson (E.B.),
Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kennedy (RI), Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kind,
Kleczka, Kolbe, Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT),
Leach, Lee, Levin, Lewis (GA), Lipinski, Lofgren, Lynch, Majette,
Maloney, Markey, Matsui, McCarthy (MO), McCarthy (NY), McCollum,
McDermott, McGovern, McNulty, Meehan, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Menendez,
Michaud, Millender-McDonald, Miller (NC). Miller (George), Mollohan,
Moore, Moran (VA), Murtha, Nadler, Napolltano, Neal (MA), Oberstar,
Obey, Olver, Ortiz, Ose, Owens, Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor, Payne.
Pelosi, Pomeroy, Price (NC), Rangel, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ros-Lehtinen,
Rothman, Roybal-Allard, Ruppersberger, Rush, Ryan (OH), Sabo, Sānchez
(Linda T.). Sanchez (Loretta), Sanders, Schakowsky. Schiff, Scott (GA),
Scott (VA), Serrano. Shays, Sherman, Simmons, Slaughter, Smith (WA),
Snyder, Solis, Spratt, Stark, Strickland, Stupak, Tauscher, Thompson
(CA), Thompson (MS), Tierney, Towns, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Van Hollen,
Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson, Watt, % man, Weiner, Wexler,
Woolsey, MN, Wynn.
NOT VOTING:
Carson (IN), Collins, Greenwood, Kirk, Kucinich, Lowey, Paul, Quinn.
|