Antigay language tweaked in Federal Marriage Amendment

Congressional supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage unveiled a change in their proposal Monday that they said would leave state legislatures with the unambiguous right to recognize civil unions. The deletion of five words, however, did nothing to lessen the opposition of Democratic critics of the proposed constitutional amendment. They responded by seeking an indefinite delay in a hearing set for Tuesday.

"This new language makes the intent of the legislation even clearer," said Colorado senator Wayne Allard, the amendment's leading advocate in the U.S. Senate. "To protect marriage in this country as the union between a man and a woman and to reinforce the authority of state legislatures to determine benefits issues related to civil unions or domestic partnerships."

"This is an attempt to change the Constitution from a vessel for freedom to a tool of discrimination," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. "For more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended to expand individual rights, not restrict them. No matter how you word it, this amendment discriminates against millions of Americans."

Said Dave Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats: "The new language, like the old, would prevent any court from ruling that LGBT people have a right to be treated equally under the law. This new language is a murky attempt to appear more moderate in order to increase support for the amendment. However, amending the U.S. Constitution is never a moderate measure, and the new language would create as much damage as the old."

Full Story:
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11776&sd=03/23/04

I'm so inspired, I may join those Log Cabin boys! Just call me Cleopatra, "The Queen of Denial"

:

Take my ex-wife. she was married to me. Most female homosexuals that I have met have been married.

I think that the homosexuals attempting to redefine marriage with a republican house, senate, and president are masters of bad timing.

That's fair, isn't it?

Oh, it's not? Then why is it fair that a lesbian can get married, just not to another lesbian?

Yes, how inappropriate of them to push for the Constitutional amendment!

:crazy:

I feel you are conveying bitterness over your experience. By what right do you believe it is right to deny homosexuals the right to marry?

they are trying to expand the rights of marriage to all consenting, non-related adults. They are attempting to secure their equal rights under the law. This is no more "attempting to redefine marriage" than it was for the Lovings to fight for their right to marry, although bigots of that time also believed that it was an assault on the "definition of marriage".

WTF?
:wtf: