Federal Marriage Amendment

Against all common sense and human dignity, Congress is once again considering the discriminatory and barbaric Federal Marriage Amendment. The Senate will vote June 5 whether to define marriage in the Constitution as being between a man and a woman. Once enshrined, it would be very, very difficult for states to rise above. John McCain:

The Constitutional Amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them, and which they feel capable of resolving should it confront them, again according to local standards and customs.

The Human Rights Campaign is running a postcard campaign to counter a similar one being run by FMA supporters. Whatever you think about the efficacy of digital postcard campaigns, it’s at least worth ensuring that the numbers aren’t grossly skewed by vigorous religious campaigns. HRC also has tips on setting up a meeting with your congress critter.

Music: Velvet Underground :: Some Kinda Love

Technorati Tags: , , ,

5 Replies to “Federal Marriage Amendment”

  1. Quite topical Scot, as I’ve just finished watching a recording of tonight’s Insight TV deabte here in Oz which dealt with the topic of gay marriage. Heres’ the program’s web site: http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/index.php

    Legislation has already been passed in Australia specifically defining marriage as “between a man and a woman” at the Federal level, although the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) has recently enacted legislation allowing civil union and is set for a showdown with the Feds.

    Yet another form of discrimination as a direct result of religion.

  2. Dang, those HRC tips aren’t gay marriage proposal tips. “Sir, I’ve always found you attractive, both as a candidate and as a man …”

    Or maybe they are …

    Bring materials to the meeting that you can leave with your elected official.

    I’m thinking of the Moncia Lewinsky dress on my US rep. Delicious.

  3. Heh. Mnep almost made me spit coffee on my K/B this morning… :D

    And yes, I share Donncha’s frustration with my coreligionists (I’m a self-professed Christian, Episcopalian branch) If Western Christianity can’t get over its addiction to this weird, witch’s brew of Biblical “literalism” mixed with extremist, neo-conservative politics we’ve been swilling, then I predict the Church will become a tiny minority in a few generations. Much like the situation in Europe.

    Of course, if we can’t get beyond this, then we’ll deserve that decline, and society will be the better for it.

  4. The Constitution should not be about defining marriage which is for the most part a religious institution. Marriage should simply be a matter of contract law independent of religion or sex in the eyes of the government. No tax breaks other than dependents (which is already independent of marital status) and hey… contracts ahead of time might avoid a lot of legal issues should a union wind up in “divorce.” Yes I know I am probably in an extreme minority on this issue…

  5. SeanS, it’s probably a minority view in the context of the U.S., but I think there are quite a few readers here who agree with you. We’ve discussed this topic here a few times and your seems to be a common opinion (and FWIW I agree as well).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.