Claim:   A constitutional amendment that would "ban homosexual marriages and
civil unions" is "being pushed through Congress."
Status:   Sort of.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 2002]


Ban on Gay Marriages Bill Now in Congress
There is a Constitutional Amendment being proposed that will ultimately ban
homosexual marriages/civil unions and possibly domestic partner benefits in
the future. It is being pushed through Congress quickly so as to make as
little noise as possible.

There's so much else in the news right now, that the amendment is not being
noticed. This petition is being organized by a second party -- it's NOT an
"add your name to the bottom and forward" sort of thing. You must go to the
site itself in order to sign the petition.

Please pass this along to your friends and family.
PLEASE READ, SIGN, AND FORWARD ON.

http://www.petitiononline.com/0712t001/petition.html




Origins:   The issue
over whether states should recognize same-sex marriages or allow for civil
unions that extend same-sex couples the same benefits and rights as married
male-female couples remains controversial. Vermont recently implemented the
nation's first civil union system to provide the equivalent rights and
benefits of heterosexual marriage to same-sex couples, and five other state
legislatures (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington, Hawaii, and California)
have considered similar measures. In response, thirty-five other states (and
the federal government) have adopted "defense of marriage laws" to define
marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman. In July 2001,
the group Alliance for Marriage began to promote the passage of a Federal
Marriage Amendment to legislate that "marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman," an action that -- if
successful -- could effectively prevent or overturn state laws recognizing
same-sex marriages and civil unions. The petition linked above seeks to
enlist support to prevent this from happening.

In order to become part of the constitution, an amendment must:


Be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate. (Amendments can also be proposed by
a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state
legislatures, but none of the current twenty-seven amendments was introduced
in this manner.)

Be ratified by three-fourths of the states (currently 38 out of 50).
The Federal Marriage Amendment was finally introduced on 15 May 2002, but
the claim that it is being "pushed through Congress" is somewhat
misleading,
as it implies that the amendment is being sneaked past unaware Congressman
or is likely to be passed due to the strong-arming efforts of its
supporters. It hasn't even come up for a vote yet (and indeed, it may never
be voted upon), and FOX News noted that the "amendment has little chance of
becoming the law of the land merely because of the obstacles a measure must
overcome to change the Constitution." (Since most Democrats would presumably
vote against such an amendment, and the composition of both the House and
the Senate is close to 50-50, the chances of a two-thirds majority in both
houses are rather slim.)

Consider the following:


Despite several attempts to draft an amendment outlawing the burning of the
American flag since the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning was
protected free speech, no flag-burning amendment has ever garnered enough
support to be sent to the states for ratification (even when the Republican
party held a majority in both houses of Congress).

Every single constitutional amendment ratified in the last eighty years
(save the amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933) has dealt with technical
regulations regarding who can hold national office (and how they're
compensated) and who can vote.

No proposed amendment of any other nature has cleared Congress and been sent
to the states for ratification in thirty years. The last amendment to do so,
the Equal Rights Amendment, still has not been ratified by a sufficient
number of states three decades later, despite having been reintroduced in
every Congress since then.
What's the significance of all this? Politicians shy away from passing
important laws like consitutional amendments that could cost them votes and
deny them re-election. That's why all the successful amendments in the last
eight decades have dealt with the technicalities of holding office or laws
affecting who can vote -- politicians' passing amendments to govern
themselves is politically safe, and politicians' allowing more people to
vote generally garners them the support of the voters they just
enfranchised. But for a long time time now, constitutional amendments
involving social issues -- even one as comparatively innocuous as the Equal
Rights Amendment -- have been too controversial for comfort.

The bottom line is that it's a very long way from "some group wants to pass
a constitutional amendment" to actually amending the constitution, and the
proposal discussed here isn't even within sight of the finish line.
Dedicated efforts are indeed being made by both those who would like to pass
this amendment and those who would like to defeat it, however, so citizens
who feel strongly about the issue should certainly contact their
representatives to make their views known.

Last updated:   16 May 2002


The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/marriage.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2003
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
   Sources:
    Ferdinand, Pamela.   "With Vermont in the Lead, Controversy
Progresses."
    The Washington Post.   4 September 2001   (p. A3).

    Mattox Jr., William.   "Marriage Issues Send My Daughter Wrong
Message."
    USA Today.   21 August 2001   (p. A11)


--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha