Please Vote No

[NachtSorcier]

The Federal Marriage Amendment, which, if passed, will obliterate same-sex marriage in the US forever.  Last month, the Senate voted on it and it did not pass.  Now, its the House of Representatives' turn to vote, and they do it tomorrow.  Please go to http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards_house/ww6xe7wz05bdnw7? to encourage your representative to vote against the Amendment.

Blessed be and live free,
Christophe

[Sewa Yoleme]

NS, forgive my rudimentary understanding of the legislative process, but if the Senate's version didn't pass, what does it matter if the House's version does? Doesn't a law have to pass both the House and the Senate, then go through committee to unify the versions, before going on to the president for signing? If the bill fails at any step in the process, isn't it declared dead?

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[NachtSorcier]

That's a very good question.  It would seem that having been defeated by the Senate it would be dead, but if the House is voting on it there must be a reason.  And besides, it has been defeated before and they keep trying to pass it again and again.  Thank the man in the White House and all his right-wing cronies for that.

[Lark]

NS, forgive my rudimentary understanding of the legislative process, but if the Senate's version didn't pass, what does it matter if the House's version does? Doesn't a law have to pass both the House and the Senate, then go through committee to unify the versions, before going on to the president for signing? If the bill fails at any step in the process, isn't it declared dead?

.:. Sewa Yoleme

In this case they're trying to make it a Constitutional amendment.  So the House AND Senate will have to come up with a joint bill that passes both Houses, it will have to be signed by the President...AND more importantly, it will then have to go out to the separate States for ratification.  

-Lark-

[Anonymous]

I believe they are different versions of the same bill.

This kind of legislation denies people access to hospital rooms and basic support of a loved one we all enjoy and never consider a constitutional right! Argh!

[Sewa Yoleme]

This kind of legislation denies people access to hospital rooms and basic support of a loved one we all enjoy and never consider a constitutional right! Argh!

Well, not "we," exactly. A number of us hereabouts are gay.

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[Anonymous]

It shoudln't matter if some are gay, it is still taking rights away, rights that were made long ago with our fore fathers. It seems that we are relieved of more and more of our rights every day. It really is a pity that it has come to this.

[Jennie]

I think Sewa Yoleme's point was that a number *of our members here* are already being denied these rights by virtue of the fact that, because they are gay, they cannot legally marry their chosen life partners.

Wren indicated that "we all" enjoy these fundamental rights without thinking of them as anything special.

Some of "us" don't... but, I agree, we all should be able to.

Bright blessings,
Jennie

[Anonymous]

Oh, my bad.... please forgive me, I just get so mad when anyone's rights are taken away. This is supposed to be the country of the free !!!!  Too many groups are way to ( concerned )  about how we should act, eat, and work. My point being where is OUR freedom ??!! And this has gotten a lot worse with , oh my, how should I put this, not wanting to offend anyone, Mr Bush !!!  You know the one I mean, the big oil investor and his buddys. This is going to lead to a rant, so I am going to end this now, but maybe you see my point. Sometimes I feel like we have a dictator instead of a president ( SIGH ) , and it just isn't him, there are others involved also, groups of people with way to much time on thier hands.        BB

[Shadow]

Well, we, as a nation, have allowed our rights to be erroded to the point that we no longer enjoy the protection of some of our most important constitutional rights.  Habias Corpus comes readily to mind.  If you are suspected of terrorism you can be arrested and detained indefinately and they don't even have to charge you.  They also don't have to give you up for a writ of habias corpus.  In fact they don't even have to admit they have you in custody.  They don't even have to show any proof of why they "suspected you of terrorism" in the first place.

Welcome to the post 9/11 world we have allowed our leaders to create in the name of national security.

Ben Franklin said it best, "People who give up their rights for security deserve neither".

[NachtSorcier]

I'm glad to see that you all understand how important the issue is, and that it isn't just about marriage.  A lot of people don't seem to understand that not only would such an amendment take away my community's right to marry, it would affect heterosexual marriages as well and open a gate that would allow "family traditionalists" to begin attacking our other rights.  It wasn't long ago that just being gay was punishable by law; I for one don't want that time to return.

[TheBriarRose]

This isn't just a gay issue at all.  It has nothing to do with who you diddle when the lights are out.  Consider that sometimes who you choose as family isn't related to you at all...


My mother had a dear friend (both of them were heterosexual) who was ill.  This friend wanted to give my mother what are considered "spousal rights" while the friend's life dwindled from a number of auto-immune diseases.  Although my mother KNEW and supported all this lady's choices, her sons were able to come in, play the "blood relative card" and completely shut my mother out of her friend's life...ignoring the poor lady's final wishes and runing things the way they wanted.  


I think if all they needed was a marriage license for my mother to gain those rights, these two would have married...not for sex, but for the legal rights a marriage license permits... Love is love is love.....no matter how it manifests.

[dragonfly]

In my opinion they should amend the bill to include people of opposite sex who are living together to have spousal rights,as well as the gay and lesbian partners.

I have lived with my man for 12 years,we have 3 children together. However I'm NOT entitled to be covered under his medical. Nor will I ever be able to collect any benefits (of his) from Social Security for myself~for the kids,yes.

I hoestly believe that if you choose a person as you life partner (married or not) you should be able to get the same benefits as those who are married.


Sorry if I'm ranting...

[Sewa Yoleme]

In my opinion they should amend the bill to include people of opposite sex who are living together to have spousal rights,as well as the gay and lesbian partners.

Unfortunately, the Federal Marriage Amendment isn't about the inclusion of gay and lesbian partners. It will amend the U.S. constitution to prohibit gay marriage forever, regardless of what the states might say.

The proposed amendment goes beyond defining marriage and could deny gay families fundamental protections such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and health care benefits.
The amendment reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Because of that phrase in boldface, leading legal scholars agree that the amendment could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples, like the right to partner health benefits or fair taxation upon the death of a partner---even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them.

.:. Sewa Yoleme

[NachtSorcier]

Too right you are, Sewa.

I've just watched the voting on C-Span and it was defeated.