The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Commentary
    • Columns
    • Water Cooler
    • Letters
    • Cartoons
    • Books
  • Sports
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Communities
  • Rebate Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Photos
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Local

    Oh snow! Another storm approaches

  • Health

    Obama fights obesity with executive power

  • Investigation

    Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash

  • Politics

    Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent

  • Security

    Ayatollah: Iran's military will 'punch' West

  • Politics

    Rep. Murtha dies at age 77

  • Security

    Army warned about jihadist threat in '08

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Senators offer amendment against gay 'marriage'

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen

More Stories

  • Oh snow! Another storm approaches
  • Dow up 214 on hopes about Greek debt
  • Iran accelerates nuclear program
  • Afghan avalanches kill at least 28

By

Several senators introduced a constitutional amendment yesterday to prohibit the federal government from recognizing homosexual "marriages" and to allow states to ignore such unions conducted in other states.

Sen. Wayne Allard, Colorado Republican, introduced the legislation on what was expected to be the final day of voting in the Senate this year.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that the state's constitution prohibits the state from denying same-sex couples the right to "marry" and to enjoy the privileges that come with marriage. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a law to allow such rights.

Opponents say such a law would open the way for homosexual couples who "marry" in Massachusetts to sue for recognition in their own states.

"What's happened in Massachusetts means that we're now in a race against time. If we want our laws to reflect the values and beliefs of most Americans about marriage, we're going to need to pass the federal marriage amendment," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which wrote the text of the amendment.

It 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, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

"This language is simple, direct and to the point. This union is sacred and must remain so," Mr. Allard said as he introduced the amendment. "This resolution is a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion. I look forward to having an involved, informed debate with the other members of this chamber."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado Republican, introduced the same amendment in the House months ago.

Some conservative groups had been arguing for introduction of a broader amendment that would have dictated what sort of civil union benefits states could offer.

But Mr. Daniels said that endorsements by Mr. Allard and Republican co-sponsors Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama show where the debate is headed.

It's not clear whether Congress will act quickly next year.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act seven years ago, stating that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states. Republican leaders said last week that they want to see how the courts handle that law before they proceed with an amendment.

Amending the Constitution requires the votes of two-thirds of the members in both chambers of Congress and approval in three-fourths of state legislatures.

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Commenting is disabled for this entry.
If you feel there is still something worth mentioning about this entry please contact the author or the site admin.

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash
  2. Va. Senate OKs ban on sexual orientation bias
  3. Another storm approaches Mid-Atlantic
  4. LYNCH: Drug czar should go
  5. Storm could put Super Bowl fans in dark
More Top Stories »
  1. Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent
  2. Ayatollah: Iran's military will 'punch' West
  3. Clinton: Islamist terror is No. 1 threat
  4. Super snow Sunday: Region digs out from 'historic' storm
  5. Prop. 8 trial stirs questions, emotions

Most Shared

  1. BLANKLEY: Palin delivers sparkle, warmth
  2. Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash
  3. Army warned about jihadist threat in '08
  4. New federal office for global warming
  5. STEYN: The 'corpseman' cometh
More Top Stories »
  1. Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent
  2. PRUDEN: Hatching the Silly Bowl
  3. Ayatollah: Iran's military will 'punch' West
  4. EDITORIAL: Free the Baptist 10 in Haiti
  5. Another storm approaches Mid-Atlantic

Most Commented

  1. Palin: President run may be 'right thing'
  2. Obama's bipartisan call hits wall of dissent
  3. Clinton: Islamist terror is No. 1 threat
  4. New federal office for global warming
  5. Rep. Murtha dies at age 77
More Top Stories »
  1. Obama to host televised, bipartisan meeting on health care
  2. Prop. 8 trial stirs questions, emotions
  3. BLANKLEY: Palin delivers sparkle, warmth
  4. Blacks face Senate shutout in 2011
  5. LYNCH: Drug czar should go

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    White House communications chief to treat Fox differently than ABC, NBC

  • Belief Blog

    Anglican day of reckoning coming

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    (Almost) All about Apple's iPad

  • Redskins 360

    This is goodbye ... for now

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.