|
AMENDMENT ONE SUMMARY
Main Points to
Consider
 |
The
Alabama Marriage Amendment proposes
that "no
marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex
and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same
sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction." |
A Constitutional Amendment is not necessary -
Any amendments to the Alabama Constitution should not be proposed on the
whims of special interests or without due consideration and in-depth
deliberation. Intelligent citizens realize that this amendment is a bad
idea and flies in the face of democracy.
Alabama already has a law that bans gay couples from obtaining marriage
licenses.
Amendments to any constitution are usually proposed to EXPAND, not
RESTRICT the freedoms of citizens. Every amendment to the US
Constitution expands freedoms and liberties.
Separation of church and state -
Thoughtful citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation, also
recognize the importance and necessity of the separation of church and
state. No law that seeks to advance a religious doctrine or agenda
should ever be imposed on citizens.
A Government of the People, All People -
The state should serve all citizens, and make no laws to restrict or
limit the human rights or civil liberties of the people it serves.
Amendment One Addresses more than Marriage Issues -
Amendment One is tricky because it makes Alabamians vote on two things
at the same time:
marriage issues
and
civil protections.
If Amendment One is passed rights such as
hospital visitation, family leave, employee benefits,
and hundreds of others including those impacting children will be
affected. It would not only ban marriage, but also Civil Unions,
Domestic Partnerships, any form of legal recognition and protection for
LGBT families.
Heath & Humanitarian Issues -
Amendment One could take away things like the ability for
straight or gay
people to visit an unmarried partner in the hospital, health insurance
for the children of unmarried partners, or domestic violence protections
for women. It may also give others the idea that in Alabama we do not
care about our neighbors and communities, discouraging economic
development.
If it passed it could deny many families and children
health care, inheritance rights
and the ability to make
lifesaving medical decisions.
It could have other unintended consequences as well, such as removing
domestic violence protections
for single women. Our Constitution is designed to protect people, not
hurt them.
-Compiled by Paul Hard
GAY MARRIAGE
BAN VOTE NEARS
Amendment to Be Decided in June 6 Primary
Alabamians will decide in the June 6 primary whether to add another
layer of barriers to gays getting married or getting recognition for
their marriages performed in other states.
Alabama already has a law that bans gay couples from obtaining marriage
licenses, but there will be a proposed amendment on the ballot that
would make the prohibition of gay marriage part of the state's
constitution.
The Alabama Legislature overwhelmingly approved the legislation that
placed the amendment on the ballot.
The Christian Coalition of Alabama has announced it will print and
distribute up to 1.2 million voters' guides to make sure Alabamians know
to vote "yes" if they want to constitutionally bar gay marriage.
"It's just another way of saying, 'We don't like you. We don't want you
to benefit from having stable families,'" said Ken Baker of Montgomery,
an organizer for the gay rights group Equality Alabama.
John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition, predicted the proposed
constitutional amendment will get between 80 percent and 90 percent of
the vote.
Howard Bayless of Birmingham, chairman of Equality Alabama, disagreed.
"Reality is, our neighbors respect us," said Bayless. "People are trying
to use fear and use other tactics for their political gain."
Bayless said he is optimistic that Giles' prediction of a landslide
won't happen.
"We believe there are a lot of fair-minded people in Alabama, and come
June 6 they will defeat this amendment," he said.
Sen. Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, voted in favor of the referendum last
year. Ross said he is opposed to gay marriages, but believes voters
should decide the issue.
Ross declined to say how he would vote on the amendment on June 6.
"As a
state official, we're elected by all people," he said. "Of course, one's
preference or sexual orientation would be between them and their god."
The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Montgomery has embraced the gay
community and opposes the constitutional change.
Church member Mike Tatum said the congregation has about a dozen openly
gay members.
"They very much want to be able to take care of each other in their old
age," he said.
Though the Christian Coalition is spending about $50,000 on fliers
supporting the gay marriage ban, Giles said the message isn't for gays
to leave Alabama.
"This is about protecting traditional marriage," he said.
-By
John Davis
/
Montgomery Advertiser
MESSAGE TO ALCA FROM
AGLBICAL PRESIDENT
Donna Melder
I am writing you as Division President of
AGLBICAL, and at the request of some of my members to address
Amendment One concerns. As it has been brought to my attention this
morning, the leading newspapers in the state have taken a stand
against this amendment. As a leader, counselor, and citizen, I too
feel compelled to vote against Amendment One (Should be no surprise
there). This is what I would like you to consider today:
We have ethical
guidelines as set down by the ACA to follow. In those guidelines we
are reminded to be nondiscriminatory to all peoples. Amendment One
will impact counselors in all settings in the state of Alabama.
There will be children involved with school counselors who will be
impacted, there will be partners in hospitals who are denied access
to their loved ones; whether elderly or not, who will end up in
someone’s office because of this issue, there will be people who are
involved in spiritual networks throughout the state that will go to
their counselors asking how can this happen in 2006 that their
church, or religious leaders stand against them as members of their
congregation in such a time of need, there will be counselors
practicing in many areas of mental health agencies that will have
clients impacted by this amendment, Everyone will be impacted by
this amendment.
I am writing you
to say that not voting no on Amendment One opens the door to other
areas of discrimination. What will be next, what group will we
decide we do not agree with and discriminate against because of our
differences. I am thinking about a question that my nephew asked me
recently. He lives in a remote part of north Louisiana. He is
thirteen and is wondering about all this “diversity” stuff. He asked
me what I thought about spinners on a truck that passed as we waited
for my parents outside a Wal-Mart in Pensacola, Florida. My answer
to him was that I am so glad that the person driving the vehicle can
put spinners on his hubs if he so chooses. I may not choose to put
them on my car, but wow, how great is it that he can, and how great
is it that you can hunt, ride four wheelers, raise cows, and do the
things you like to do.
This is a hard
message for me in so many ways. I typically do not really stand up
or stand out… but I am compelled to do both today. I am asking that
you send out some sort of message TODAY against amendment one. As a
member of this association and this vocation, please help me stand
up, and stand out.
GAY MARRIAGE BAN
Alabama Legislature Seeks to Restrict Human Rights
Alabama voters are being asked to vote to amend the state constitution
on June 6. The
Alabama Marriage Amendment proposes
that "no
marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex
and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same
sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction."
Despite the mean-spirited and empty-headed efforts of state legislators
to promote this vile measure, thoughtful and compassionate citizens
otherwise know that any amendments to the Alabama Constitution should
not be proposed on the whims of special interests or without due consideration and indepth deliberation.
Intelligent citizens realize that this amendment is a bad idea and flies
in the face of democracy.
Amendments to any constitution are usually proposed to EXPAND, not
RESTRICT the freedoms of citizens. Every amendment to the US
Constitution expands freedoms and liberties. As a clear
recognition of the error of denying freedoms to citizens in a free
country, the only example of an amendment that sought to restrict
freedoms (Amendment 18: Alcohol Prohibition) was later repealed
(Amendment 21).
Moreover, this Amendment would effectively write discrimination into our
state constitution. Surely, thoughtful, compassionate citizens
would not support any move to reverse the progress that has been made in
this state regarding the fight against discrimination.
Thoughtful citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation, also
recognize the importance and necessity of the separation of church and state. While churches are
perfectly within their authority to place limits on the activities of their members, and are free to operate their organization
in any manner they please, they have no right or jurisdiction to impose
their religious mandates on the rest of society. Similarly, the state
has no jurisdiction in religious affairs. No law should ever be
imposed on citizens that seeks to advance a religious agenda.
If a church wants to restrict their marriage ceremonies to opposite-sex
couples only, and ban same-sex ceremonies in their structure, that is their prerogative as a religious organization.
They need no legislation to advance that cause. The state, on the
other hand, should serve all citizens, and make no laws to restrict or
limit the human rights or civil liberties of the people it serves.
We can leave the trampling of human rights to the churches. They
have a long history of oppression. The
state, if it has any integrity at all, should discontinue their
inappropriate partnership with the churches and proceed with its mission to expand civil liberties
whenever possible.
Voting NO on this
ill-conceived amendment is the right thing to do.
-Editorial Comment Submitted by Michael Lebeau
VOTE NO ON JUNE 6
Vote
Against Alabama Marriage Amendment
Please Vote
NO for the
Alabama Marriage Amendment on June 6th.
"This
measure proposes
an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that no
marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex
and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same
sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction."
This
is about protecting our Constitutional (civil) rights NOT about changing
religious/moral values. "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -
no one deserves those rights to be taken away even if your personal
religious conviction is against being gay. We are not trying to change
anyone's religious/moral beliefs; this NO vote is about civil NOT
religious marriage.
We
are a
free
country, let's not change that hallmark.
-Editorial Comment Submitted by Lyndsey Robinson
GAY-MARRIAGE
AMENDMENT
Nothing More Than Political Ploy
In 1964, just one congressman from the
Deep South -- Charles Weltner -- voted for the Civil Rights Act. For all
practical purposes, his righteous leadership on civil rights -- he also
supported the Voting Rights Act -- cost him his congressional career. He
quit the race for re-election in 1966 rather than sign an act of loyalty
to the segregationist Lester Maddox, as Georgia Democrats insisted. But
some analysts believe he would have lost anyway.
Doing the right thing is difficult because it often means losing. And
the typical politician is willing to lose anything -- honor, integrity,
dignity -- but an election.
That
helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have
stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the
cynical and opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing
on prejudice and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the
winning margin in tight races.
It certainly worked two years ago. Republican tacticians maneuvered to
add amendments against gay marriage to the ballots in 11 states,
including Georgia. The result was to lure religious conservatives to the
polls in large numbers, probably giving
President Bush
the boost he needed in the battleground state of Ohio.
This
year, conservative Republicans -- struggling against voter discontent
over
Iraq,
health care and high gas prices, among other things -- are desperate to
bring those religious conservatives back to the polls. So they've
resurrected the same tired tactic. Next month, the Senate is expected to
vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.
Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative
as anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a
frenzy of gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season -- they thundered
against gay marriage as a threat to every family tradition, from
man-woman marriages to peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches -- Republican
leaders hadn't even mentioned the issue again. The threat disappeared
for two years. Until now -- when they're facing the prospect of losing
control of Congress.
Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good
wedge issue. Oh, first lady
Laura Bush
has pointed out the unfairness of a constitutional amendment. So has
Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, who lives openly with
her partner of 14 years, Heather Poe, and has recently published her
memoirs. Earlier this month, Cheney told CNN that "writing
discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is
fundamentally wrong."
But it's unlikely you'll hear the vice president arguing against the
amendment so pointedly on the campaign trail. While he has said in the
past that he opposes it, he'd rather remind his right-wing supporters of
his staunch support for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush, for his
part, has spent his remaining pennies of political capital trying to
pass a humane policy on immigration. He may not fight for an amendment
banning gay marriage, but he's unlikely to get in the way of it, either.
In Georgia, meanwhile, even progressive politicians have been cowed by
the state's overwhelming consensus against gay marriage. Though 76
percent of Georgia voters approved the ban two years ago, a Superior
Court judge recently struck down the amendment on technical grounds.
After the ruling, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, quickly announced
plans for a special session of the legislature to rewrite the ban and
place it before voters again in November. His two Democratic opponents,
Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox, rushed to support
the move.
Cox's awkward leap onto the bandwagon was especially disappointing,
since she pointed out two years ago that the amendment is "unnecessary."
Georgia law, like federal law, already bans same-sex unions. But many
analysts have pointed out that Cox is desperate to draw black voters
away from Taylor in the Democratic primary for governor; black
Georgians, like their white neighbors, gave their unabashed support to
enshrining bigotry in the state Constitution.
Cox, like most other politicians, would rather pander to the prejudices
of voters than stand by her principles. It's a perfectly human
inclination -- doing the safe thing, rather than the right thing.
There are never more than a handful like Weltner, who preferred losing a
campaign to sacrificing his conscience. In his resignation speech, he
declared, "I love the Congress, but I will give up my office before I
give up my principles. ... I cannot compromise with hate." His courage
is as rare now as it was then.
- By
Cynthia Tucker / Atlanta Journal Constitution /
cynthia@ajc.com
CARTOON COMMENTARY
Two Editorial Perspectives
Consider these two recent editorial cartoons on the gay marriage
debate... One offering a religious perspective and one offering a
political perspective.
MESSAGE FROM
EQUALITY ALABAMA
Vote No on Amendment One
Amendment One is tricky because it makes Alabamians vote on two things
at the same time: marriage issues and civil protections. If Amendment
One passed gay families could lose civil protections, rights and
responsibilities currently guaranteed to all other Alabama citizens and
their children. This would include rights such as hospital visitation,
family leave, employee benefits, and hundreds of others including those
affecting children. It would not only ban marriage, but also Civil
Unions, Domestic Partnerships, any form of legal recognition and
protection for LGBT families.
The hateful thing about Amendment One is that it doesn't just bar
marriage, it bars any form of equal protection. Alabama has a 1998 law
defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. In every sense,
Amendment One is overkill and simply unfair – and that’s why people
should vote no. Amendment One could take away things like the ability
for straight or gay people to visit an unmarried partner in the
hospital, health insurance for the children of unmarried partners, or
domestic violence protections for women. It may also give others the
idea that in Alabama we do not care about our neighbors and communities,
discouraging economic development.
Amendment One hurts real all Alabamians by putting unequal treatment for
gays and lesbians in our Constitution. Good neighbors do not
discriminate, but Amendment One represents the least caring behavior for
our neighbors. If it passed it could deny many families and children
health care, inheritance rights and the ability to make lifesaving
medical decisions. It could have other unintended consequences as well,
such as removing domestic violence protections for single women. Our
Constitution is designed to protect people, not hurt them.
-Equality Alabama
GLBT ACTIVISM
Equality Alabama Making an Impact
With Alabamians scheduled to vote next year on banning same-sex
marriages, a gay rights group is stepping up its visibility by opening
offices in Birmingham and Montgomery. "In order to change the hearts and
minds of people, we have to be visible," said Howard Bayless of
Birmingham, chair of Equality Alabama.
Equality Alabama opened an office in Birmingham in April 2005 and one in
Montgomery in July 2005. The Montgomery office is in a refurbished house
on historic Perry Street, just down the street from the homes of Gov.
Bob Riley and John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition.
Both pushed for a constitutional amendment which, if approved by Alabama
voters next year, will fortify Alabama's statutory ban on same-sex
marriages by making it part of the state constitution. The location of
the office down the street from Riley's and Giles' homes is a
coincidence, but it has sparked plenty of laughs at Equality Alabama.
"The governor and Mr. Giles have to drive past it every day," Bayless
said. When asked about the office, Riley said it was a surprise to him.
"I have never noticed it," he said.
The Christian Coalition's John Giles and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley are on
the same political page when it comes to gay civil rights.
Giles is very much aware of it. When the office opened in July, he ran a
picture of it in his organization's e-mailed newsletter. Giles said
Equality Alabama has every right to open an office in the capital city,
but he wanted his members to be aware of the group's increased activity,
particularly with the vote coming up June 6, 2006, on the same-sex
marriage ban.
Equality Alabama is a statewide educational organization that was
created by the merger of several smaller groups. Bayless said the
group's increased activity was sparked, in part, by what the group
perceived as a growing anti-gay sentiment in the Legislature. Besides
approving the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the
Legislature considered - but did not pass - bills which would have
prohibited gays from adopting children and barred public libraries from
purchasing books that portrayed homosexuality as an acceptable
lifestyle.
-From an AP
Report
MESSAGE FROM HRC PRESIDENT
President Bush &
Federal Marriage Amendment
"This week, the
Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment [Federal
Marriage Amendment]. And I call on the Congress to pass this amendment
..."
- President George Bush, June 5th, 2006, 1:45 p.m. EST, White
House Press Conference
Today, President Bush addressed the nation and issued a slap in
the face of every GLBT citizen in this country. Only hours
before tomorrow's scheduled Senate debate, he called a press conference
to demand the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) - an
outrageously discriminatory constitutional ban on marriage and other
relationships for same-sex couples.
His motivations are clear: With his administration on
the ropes and far-right, anti-gay groups threatening revolt,
President Bush is willing and eager to make GLBT Americans into
second-class citizens if it will bring him political gain.
-Message
from Joe Solmonese / HRC President
|
