Oppose the Discriminatory Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment

Dear Representative:

As citizens of the great nation of the United States, we are writing to urge you to oppose passage of H.J. Res. 56/S.J. Res. 26, the Federal Marriage Amendment. Although we have differing opinions on rights for same-sex couples, we believe the Federal Marriage Amendment reflects a fundamental disregard for individual civil rights and ignores differences among our nations many religious traditions. It should be rejected.

Few decisions by religious bodies are more central than who can take part in important religious rituals or services, including marriage. Fortunately, the Constitution bars any court or legislature from requiring any religious institution or person to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone. Indeed, the Constitution protects houses of worship in their freedom to limit marriages on whatever theological grounds they choose. The First Amendment already protects religious organizations from governmental interference in such matters, and constitutional definitions of marriage therefore are unnecessary.

Regardless of judicial and legislative decisions defining the legal rights of gay couples, religious marriage will justly remain the prerogative of individual faith traditions in accordance with their doctrinal beliefs. And this is as it should be. It is not the task of our government and elected representatives to enshrine in our laws the religious point of view of any one faith. Rather, our government should dedicate itself to protecting the rights of all citizens and all faiths.

For more than 200 years, the Constitution has had no provision on marriage, the matter being left to the states and the teachings of various religious groups. Our nations founders adopted the First Amendment precisely because they foresaw the dangers posed by allowing government to have control over religious decisions. The religious freedom protected by the First Amendment has allowed religious practice and pluralism to flourish. Respecting the rights of those in the faith community who deem sacred text consistent with the blessing of same-sex relationships protects and ensures that freedom.

We are particularly concerned that this proposal to amend the Constitution would, for the first time, restrict the civil rights of millions of Americans. That concern alone merits rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment. We strongly believe that Congress must continue to protect the nations fundamental religious freedoms and continue to protect our nations bedrock principle of respecting religious pluralism. Congress should soundly reject any attempt to enshrine into the Constitution a particular religious viewpoint on a matter of such fundamental religious importance.

Amending the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman would actually deny more than 1,100 rights, protections and benefits to millions of devoted couples and their children.
Amending the Constitution is very rare and is only done to address great public policy needs. In our Constitution's 214-year history, it was first amended to include the Bill of Rights in 1791. Since then, it has only been amended 17 times.

Throughout American history, the Constitution has been amended to protect the rights and liberties of the American people. It has been amended to abolish slavery, to keep the government out of people's lives, and to give women and young people the right to vote. It should not be used to single out some Americans for discrimination.

Many of the major civil rights advances of the last century have resulted from the judicial branch stepping in to ensure that all Americans are provided equal protection under the law. From Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 to Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the courts have provided a necessary and constitutional check on governmental abuses of power and violations of individual rights. Adopting this amendment would take away the constitutional power of the courts to protect individual rights.
Such a cynical amendment illustrates a cruel irony about groups that call themselves "pro-family." The amendment proposed in the 108th Congress goes beyond defining marriage and seeks to deny gay families fundamental protections such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and health care benefits. There is nothing pro-family about that.
This amendment not only attempts to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians, but it also attempts to undermine legislative and legal efforts to protect American families who are gay and lesbian couples and their children.
Several leading Republicans and conservatives, such as George Will and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., oppose the amendment, seeing it as a clear violation of federalist principles.

Leading legal scholars agree that the amendment could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples, like the right to partner health benefits or fair taxation upon the death of a partner even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them.
In a post-Sept. 11 world, it is very telling and shameful that the far right has nothing better to focus its energies on than introducing a gratuitous anti-gay constitutional amendment.

There is no groundswell of support for such an amendment except from anti-gay extremists. More than half the country, or 51 percent, favors allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions and receive the same basic legal rights as married couples, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released March 10, 2004. Fifty-two percent of those polled in the March 4-7 survey oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and say the issue should be left up to the states. Same-sex marriage ranks as the least important of a dozen issues, including the economy, health care and the war on terrorism, it found.
A majority of Hispanics in the United States oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, according to an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll. Fifty-three percent of Hispanics surveyed said they are against such a move, the March 6-8, 2004, survey found. In addition, Catholics are evenly split, on the amendment, with 48 percent opposed and 48 percent supportive of the amendment.

A Gallup Poll released in May 2003 showed that six in 10 Americans support giving same-sex couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples "regarding health care benefits and Social Security survivor benefits." The poll also showed that the country is evenly split, 49 percent in favor and 49 percent against, on allowing same-sex couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of marriage. This is the strongest support to date in favor of gay and lesbian relationship recognition. In a Gallup Poll from May 2002, 46 percent of Americans favored civil unions, while 51 percent opposed them.

Although anti-gay forces are trying desperately to make marriage a divisive election issue, a September 2003 Gallup poll showed that only 12 percent of Americans felt that policies toward gays and lesbians were an important election issue, while almost half of those polled cited the economy, the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq, creating jobs and education as the important issues in the 2004 election.

Past polling has shown that 90 percent of voters support hospital visitation for same-sex partners; and 66 percent support inheritance rights for same-sex couples