---

Amendment Would Define Marriage as Male-Female
Wednesday, July 11, 2001

WASHINGTON - A broad coalition of religious groups plans to introduce a constitutional amendment declaring marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman.

"The proposal will be officially introduced on Thursday," Matthew Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, told United Press International on Sunday.

He described his organization as a "nonpartisan, multicultural marriage coalition, whose board of advisers includes the Rev. Walter Fountroy, former D.C. delegate who organized the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr." Daniels said the alliance represented "tens of million of American citizens, of every color and creed."

According to an AfM announcement, the amendment's draft to be introduced in Congress will read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution (the Constitution of the United States) or the constitution of any state, not state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

According to Daniels, the co-authors of this text were professors Mary Ann Glendon of the Harvard Law School, Robert George of Princeton University, and others.

Glendon and George also belong to the alliance's board, as do Bishop George McKinney of the Church of God in Christ, a mostly black denomination, Patricia DeVeaux of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Bishop Nathaniel Linsey of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.

Other board members are Jesse Miranda of the chiefly Hispanic Allianza Ministerial Evangelica Nacional, Sayyid Sayeed of the Islamic Society of North America, Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, William Teng of the Chinese Community Church of Washington, the Rev. Wong Sang Lee of the Korean Central Presbyterian Church, Vernon Shannon of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and David Anderson of the American Anglican Council.

The AfM announcement explained that "the institution of marriage (which is) so central to the well-being of both children and our society ... is under attack from powerful forces.

"Although these forces lack popular support sufficient to accomplish their goal of redefining marriage, they enjoy widespread sympathy in elite sectors of American culture - particularly in the legal profession, universities, and other opinion leaders. At the core of the social revolution that is underway in the American courts is the redefinition of marriage to serve ends espoused by homosexual activist organizations ...

"Tragically, this process is by now so far advanced that only a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage can decisively end the abuse of the judicial process as a vehicle for undermining both marriage and democracy in America."

David Smith, communications director for Human Rights Campaign -- a 400,000 member-strong homosexual organization, called the proposed amendment "yet another mean-spirited attempt to prevent gay families from receiving the same protection as non-gays do through their ability to marry."

"It seems like an enormous undertaking to keep gay people from receiving the same protections," said Smith. "These groups say they want to protect the family, but in doing so, are attacking gay families."

The AfM statement points out that when the U.S. Constitution was adopted, "marriage was taken for granted as a union of a man and a woman ... Consequently, the word 'marriage,' or ... the word, 'family' does not appear in the Constitution.

"The Common Law which we inherited from England was clear about marriage as a union of man and woman: 'Marriage ... includes the reciprocal duties of husband and wife.'"

More than 30 states have passed laws defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. In 1996 the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage "for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman."

Smith said the amendment "creates a climate in which gay people continue to be harassed and promote intolerance."

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

----

quote:

---

The AfM announcement explained that "the institution of marriage (which is) so central to the well-being of both children and our society ... is under attack from powerful forces.

---

All in all, here are my 2 pieces of advice to those who are trying o push this amendment through congress.

(1) Get a *bleep* life.
(2) Mind your own damn business.

FUR IS MURDER! FUR IS MURDER!

::noticed everyone looking at him weird::

BUT...

Keep the word "marriage" for hetrosexual people all you want.

The big question I had was whether or not the same sex couples had to have a legally binding contract, as is required for opposite sex couples, for one to cover the other on their insurance.

If not, then this opened a big ass can of worms, in the John can get Ron on his insurance, not having a contract, but Jim couldn't get Sarah covered on the same plan when they were living in the same manner.