|
Speak Out Against the Federal Marriage Amendment
Our Constitution must not become a tool of discrimination. Anti-gay extremists, seeking to exploit the issue of same-sex marriage this election year, are mobilizing. Conserviate groups plan to send more than 10 million letters out in the coming weeks to mobilize their constituents on this issue, according to the New York Times. Their goal is to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), and Senator Frist, the Senate majority leader, has emerged as their spokesperson. Before the Massachusetts decision, 37 states had already adopted "Defense of Marriage" laws in the last seven years, and Ohio, among other states, has taken action since, so FMA is very much of a threat. President Bush has begun to yield to this pressure publicly, including in his State of the Union address. FMA would cast a shadow over domestic partnership and civil unions, as well as precluding equal marriage rights, and would enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people and their families as a Constitutional principle. Take action now: protect our Constitution from the effort to make it into a tool for discrimination and animus.
Dear [ Decision Maker ] , As your constituent, I urge you to take a strong stand against the Federal Marriage Amendment. There are those who are seeking to exploit this issue politically this year, and I urge you to oppose them. The Federal Marriage Amendment would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting, not harming, individual freedoms. None of the current constitutional amendments restricts individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of families. Furthermore, the Federal Marriage Amendment will wipe out laws that states such as California have passed to grant certain rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples through domestic partnership or civil unions. Again, I urge you to oppose this dangerous amendment.
Sincerely, |
Campaign Launched: |
| Background Information |
Spurred by Massachusetts' recent decision to legalize gay marriages, a coalition of right-wing religious groups has launched a campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, invalidate all state and local domestic partnership laws and nullify civil rights protections based on marital status. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) has advanced their goal by introducing H.J. Res 56, the "Federal Marriage Amendment."
In many states, unmarried persons -- including unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples and even unrelated clergy members -- have some of the same rights as married persons. The proposed amendment could eliminate these protections by nullifying domestic partnership laws in several states and in more than 100 counties, cities and towns. The proposal would also undermine state adoption, foster care and kinship care laws. If enacted, the amendment might even prohibit state and local governments from making their own decisions on providing benefits to their employees.
- This amendment could invalidate all legal protections for unmarried couples -- gay or straight. By denying unmarried persons all legal protections for any of the "legal incidents" of marriage, the amendment would destroy a wide range of other rights that are important to the lives of unmarried persons. Those legal protections include state and local civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on "marital status," state laws protecting unmarried elderly couples who refrain from marrying in order to hold on to their pensions, and even state laws allowing a person, in the absence of a spouse, to oppose the autopsy of a close friend because of the deceased person's religious beliefs.
- Amending the Constitution is an extreme act. The proposed amendment could prohibit states from expanding their civil rights laws to protect gay and lesbian couples, or unmarried heterosexual couples, and their families. It could forbid states from serving their traditional role as testing grounds for stronger civil rights laws.
- The Federal Marriage Amendment could reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting, not harming, individual freedoms. None of the current constitutional amendments restricts individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of families.
