CALL CONGRESS NOW-DISCUSSIONS ON MARRAIGE AMENDMENT BEGIN

[bigjake8]

CALL CONGRESS NOW-DISCUSSIONS ON MARRAIGE AMENDMENT BEGIN

 

We have set up the HRC Action Line - a toll-free number to allow you to call your member of Congress at this critical time.

 

 

 

What's happening: this week, the United States Senate held their third hearing on efforts to write discrimination against same sex couples into the Constitution. Next week the House will be holding their first in a series of hearings on efforts to change the constitution - and a vote seems likely to happen by the end of the summer in Congress. It's critical that we get as many calls into congressional offices now in order to demonstrate strong opposition to any effort to change the constitution.

 

 

 

Call the HRC Action Line at 1-800-509-0176. You will be prompted to enter your ZIP code.

 

 

 

Keep these talking points in front of you when you make the call. Tell your Member of Congress:

 

 

 

• You oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, and you urge them to oppose this legislation - and ANY amendment to the Constitution on marriage;

• These amendments would write discrimination into the Constitution - constitutional amendments have historically been about protecting and expanding rights, not about discrimination

 

The HRC Action Line will only be active from now until Friday - so please call 1-800-509-0176 today!

 

 

 

Forward this message widely!

[bigjake8]

Im gonna bump this for today, too important to ignore.

[Rick Munroe]

Bumping it up again. Make those calls!

[trilingual]

RE: Meanwhile, in the States. . .

 

According to the wire services, Massachusetts just reached agreement on an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage while allowing civil unions (with no federal benefits). x(

 

It doesn't seem to have hit the national news, but a more restrictive amendment in Kansas was just defeated by the state Senate, mainly thanks to the efforts of a Republican Senator from suburban Kansas City who kept saying that he couldn't support such an amendment because his own marriage wouldn't be threatened by same-sex marriages and none of the opponents have yet explained how their marriages would be threatened if people of the same sex were allowed to marry. I say "bravo" to him!

 

Kansas law is Jurassic on this subject, and there's always a chance that another attempt will be made to pass such an amendment there (it did pass the Kansas House) but at least for now it's not in the state Constitution and the proposal is deader than roadkill on the Kansas Turnpike. . .

[Paul Revere]

RE: Meanwhile, in the States. . .

 

Yes, the Constitutional Convention just accepted an amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman, but also gaurantees Civil Unions for gays, with all of the rights and priveleges of marriage.

 

The process in Massachusetts is that this amendment has to be accepted by the next legislative session also. Then it will go on the ballot in November 2006, and would need to be accepted by the voters, before the Massachusetts Constitiution could be amended.

 

In the meantime, the court order to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts goes into affect on May 17th, 2004, as scheduled.

 

Our conservative Republican, Mormon, govenor then asked the Attorney General to ask the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) for a stay of their order legalizing gay marriage. The Attorney General is refusing, saying he wants no part of discrimination.

 

We will see how this plays out. The amendment only passed when the Republicans changed thier votes at the last minute. They were opposing the amendment because they objected to Civil Unions. Then they realized that if this amendment failed, they would have no chance of getting any amendment on the 2006 ballot, so they accepted this compromise, that almost no one likes.

 

If the question ever gets to the 2006 ballot in Massachusetts it will be an interesting collection of strange bedfellows that will be opposing it. Gay activits will oppose it becuase they (we) want Gay Marriage. Conservatives will oppose it because they object to Civil Unions.

 

Its kind of a crazy mess, but if folks start getting married in May 2004, I don't see how they can become un-married in 2006. Hopefully by 2006, gay marriage will be a non-issue.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Meanwhile, in the States. . .

 

>Yes, the Constitutional Convention just accepted an amendment

>that would define marriage as being between one man and one

>woman, but also gaurantees Civil Unions for gays, with all of

>the rights and priveleges of marriage.

 

Unfortunately, that's not true. The proposal specifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples. x(

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Meanwhile, in the States. . .

 

>According to the wire services, Massachusetts just reached

>agreement on an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage while

>allowing civil unions (with no federal benefits). x(

 

Fucking pigs. x(

 

>a more

>restrictive amendment in Kansas was just defeated by the state

>Senate, mainly thanks to the efforts of a Republican Senator

>from suburban Kansas City

 

Fucking alright.

[trilingual]

RE: More Good News from the Midwest

 

According to the HRC site, the Iowa Senate also voted down an amendment to the Iowa Constitution a week before the vote in Kansas.

 

Let's hear it for relative sanity in the Midwest!