Civil Rights Leaders Say Federal Marriage Amendment Is Discriminatory
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 5/15/2006
Civil rights advocates are opposing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), decrying it as discriminatory and a blatant attempt by social conservatives to divide the electorate.The FMA would ban same-sex marriage in the United States and prohibit any state from legally recognizing any marriage other than one between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit states from allowing civil unions and other alternatives to same-sex marriage.
"This is a civil and human rights issue of the first magnitude, and the Constitution can not be used as a tool of exclusion," stated Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, during a briefing on the FMA held by the Coalition against Discrimination in the Constitution on May 9.
Henderson also said that the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments were designed largely to protect and expand civil liberties, not to eliminate or restrict them. "LCCR strongly believes that there are right and wrong ways to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a matter of public policy, and is extremely concerned about any proposal that would alter our nation's most important document for the direct purpose of excluding any individuals from its guarantees of equal protection," said Henderson in a recent letter to the Senate opposing the FMA.
Opponents of the amendment argue that its vague language could potentially restrict other rights and benefits of same-sex couples, such as hospital visitations, inheritance rights, and health care benefits. They argue that the law could cause legal confusion in the state courts for years.
Henderson called on Congress to focus on more pressing legislative priorities, such as health care, the war in Iraq, and the Voting Rights Act. He expressed his hope that liberals and conservatives would unite in their view that the FMA is an "improper exercise of congressional authority", and that a constitutional amendment is a dangerous and unnecessary response to the debate over same-sex marriage.
Recently, the Republican party has been divided over issues such as immigration, and President Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low. Same-sex marriage was used to galvanize the Republican base in 2004, and civil rights groups are concerned that the FMA will once again distract voters from other more pressing legislative issues.
Another panelist, Gabriela Lemus, director of policy and legislation for the League of United Latin American Citizens, suggested that the FMA is the product of a "mood swing" in the country, where homosexuals were the target. She questioned what this meant for the civil rights movement and minorities.
"Who's next?" she asked. "Will everything done in Congress be subject to a mood swing?"
