Say No to Marriage Discrimination in the Constitution

Action Needed:

Email your senators and representative
TODAY to oppose the right wing fundamentalists who want to amend the Constitution in order to permanently exclude lesbians and gays from the right to marry. George W. Bush has called on Congress to quickly pass a staunchly anti-gay proposed amendment that would define marriage, in the U.S. Constitution, as strictly between a man and a woman.

We cannot stand by idly while our opponents attempt to insert marriage discrimination into our Constitution. Now is the time to send aloud and clear message
to Congress in support of same-sex marriage and in firm opposition to the proposed "marriage discrimination" Constitutional amendment.

Background:

George W. Bush has called on Congress to quickly pass a staunchly anti-gay proposed amendment that would that would permanently exclude gays and lesbians from marrying.

Under this resolution the Constitution would be modified to include the following language: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Ratification of such an amendment would set the dangerous precedent of amending the Constitution to restrict, rather than protect, civil rights.

This divisive and discriminatory federal proposal, following on the heels of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), would have a profoundly devastating effect on the lives of lesbian and gay families across the country if it is passed by Congress and ratified by the necessary number of states.

Now that George W. Bush has announced his support of this proposal, we need to stop this proposal in Congress, before it starts down the path of ratification in the 50 states—where it will be harder and more costly to stop. The right to marry is a crucial civil rights issue, and has been deemed a "fundamental right."

Without marriage rights, gay and lesbian couples are denied well over 1,000 rights, benefits and responsibilities available to married couples, including such fundamental protections as hospital visitation rights, health care benefits, inheritance rights, social security, immigration rights, tax benefits, and parenting rights. Gay and lesbian couples are also denied the intangible benefit of the peace of mind that comes from having your commitment and your family legally recognized.

This anti-gay and anti-marriage initiative comes from the same right-wing crowd that claims to be pro-marriage and pro-family. This mean-spirited attempt at enshrining marriage discrimination in the Constitution reveals that their true agenda is not marriage and family promotion but discrimination and exclusivity. Use this link
to say no to the marriage discrimination amendment.


~
~

A civil rights movement for our time
Young Americans should fight intolerance and support gay rights movement
By John David Blakley
Published: Friday, March 5, 2004
by Ivan Flores
I was flipping through Life Magazine's "Our Century in Pictures" the other day, admiring photographs depicting the United States' steady and sometimes frustrating progress and achievements. One image in particular grabbed my attention. The photograph displayed a young black woman breaking segregation rules by sitting at the counter in a small Southern diner. In response to her quiet protest, several whites have surrounded her and are pouring sugar on her head, doing their best to degrade her. Sitting on both sides of the woman are two white youths, whose support earns them equal treatment from the antagonizing strangers. In a place and time in which racism was the status quo, three young people sat in silent protest against the rules and attitude of intolerance that had been accepted for generations.



~
Gay marriage forums come to JHU
By Xiao-bo Yuan
March 05, 2004

In reaction to President George W. Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to define legal marriages as strictly heterosexual, gay rights activists and supporters from Johns Hopkins and the Baltimore community at large gathered at two different forums in the past week to discuss strategies for defeating Bush's proposal, advance gay-rights legislation and respond to discrimination.


~
~

Katz supports marriage movement
BY CHRISTINA CHINLOY
Jonathan Katz founded two queer studies programs before creating the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies at Yale. He sat down with the Herald to discuss recent developments in gay rights.
KATE SISKEL/YH
Yale Herald: How and why did gay marriage become the icon of the gay rights movement that it is today?

Jonathan Katz: There has been a shift in the lesbian and gay community which has increasingly come to believe that, though it was once feared as only serving to replicate dying patriarchal institutions, marriage is validly an issue on our agenda. Ten years ago, if you had talked to me about marriage, I probably would have sneered and said the whole point of queerness is to re-invent institutions that are less disastrous than the ones that straight people have. Now, I am coming to realize that it's a choice issue. There are queer people who want to be married, and they should be allowed to. The Lawrence decision [Lawrence v. Texas] was one of the enabling factors. Most importantly, there have been a series of small-scale cultural skirmishes which have caused gay rights supporters to believe that we did not need to shy away from a battle which so many of us have wanted to see engaged for a long time.
This is both because the courts are on our side, for a change, and because there has been an increasing recognition that the United States is being left behind among Western nations in this regard.



~
~

Analysis: Bush's gay marriage gamble
By Kevin Anderson
BBC News Online, Washington
Bush says marriage must remain a union between a man and a woman
President George W Bush had been facing enormous pressure from religious conservatives to take a strong stand opposing same-sex marriage.

His support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is sure to keep this key Republican constituency in the fold, but it is a move not without political risk.


~
Brazilian go-ahead for gay unions

Court officials expect the first marriage requests within days
A panel of judges in a Brazilian state has ruled in favour of authorising same-sex marriages.

The southern state of Rio Grande do Sul is the first state to do so.

The ruling gives same-sex couples broad rights in areas like inheritance, child custody, insurance benefits and pensions.

Meanwhile in the US hundreds of gay and lesbian activists gathered at New York's City Hall to support gay couples denied marriage there.
Civil unions between homosexual couples are not recognised officially in Brazil.


~

In God's Eyes
By Mary Jo McConahay, Pacific News Service
March 4, 2004
The ongoing controversy over same-sex marriages, sparked by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, a Catholic, has forced many members of America's single largest denomination to wrestle with their beliefs. The Church, which has lost the battle on contraception, now is trying to hold firm on gay marriage.

For the country's 65 million Catholics, President Bush's call for a constitutional ban against gay marriage throws a troubling new public spotlight on personal beliefs. But here in San Francisco, the fire seems hotter.


~

GOP calls foul on new bill
By JIM THARPE, ERNIE SUGGS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/04/04
Republicans and Democrats in the state Legislature turned up the volume Thursday in their bitter war of words over a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Georgia.

State Rep. Jeanette Jamieson (D-Toccoa) introduced a proposal to ban gay marriage, accusing Republicans of authoring legally flawed legislation that would fail court scrutiny.


~

Countries worldwide address gay marriage
www.chinaview.cn 2004-03-05 11:27:14
BEIJING, Mar.5 (Xinhuanet) --†Three years after Amsterdam's mayor officiated at the Netherlands' first gay wedding, the gay marriage rate is falling, the first divorces are being registered and the issue has disappeared from the political agenda

While the United States is engaged in debate on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Canadians are discussing a federal law to legalize it and many European countries are adopting civil unions for gay couples.


~

03/04/2004
Bill To Prohibit Same Sex Marriages
Author: AP
Madison - Wisconsin lawmakers bickered Thursday night over a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions -- an issue that has
become a heated national debate.
The Assembly convened late Thursday afternoon and spent the first three hours debating procedural motions, with Democrats complaining that Republicans who control the chamber were trying to delay a vote as late as possible to avoid scrutiny over the divisive issue.


~

News analysis
Gay marriage momentum stuns both backers and foes
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau Friday, March 5, 2004

Same-sex marriage -- considered so radical that mainstream gay rights leaders feared its emergence in an election year -- has gained a level of visibility that even its most ardent proponents did not imagine just two months ago.


Whether intentional or not, President Bush's pledge in his State of the Union address in late January to defend traditional marriage touched off a reaction that began in San Francisco and now is rippling across the country.


~

Priest Gagged For Supporting Gay Marriage
by Jack Siu
365Gay.com Newscenter
Toronto Bureau
Posted: March 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET
(Toronto, Ontario) A Toronto priest has been suspended from all duties after expressing his support for same-sex marriage.


~~

New York AG Says Gays Will Win Marriage War As New Paltz Mayor Charged
03.03.04
By Doug Windsor
(New York City) New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer says he decided not to fight gay marriages being performed in a small village north of Manhattan because it is a case the state can't win.

"We wouldn't have won," says Spitzer. The state, he says would have been unable to prove that there was any "irreparable harm" against any party - the standard needed to persuade a court to grant an injunction.

"I have no problem with gay marriage," Spitzer, a Democrat, says. "I think the law has moved to a point where people are comfortable that [marriage] can be extended to people of the same sex."