NOW Blasts Introduction of Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment

November 26, 2003

"The so-called Federal Marriage Amendment is a transparent election-year ploy to gain political profit by exploiting bigotry and hate. The Constitution should be amended to extend rights to everyone and guarantee equal treatment, and should not be marred by institutionalizing discrimination," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "This bill even has the potential to undermine the protections and rights currently granted by civil unions, which became legal in Vermont in 2000. NOW activists and other supporters across the country are already contacting their senators demanding they vote this down."

Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) introduced the legislation, Senate Joint Resolution 26, which is currently cosponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla).

"After introducing the bill, Senator Allard opined, 'This union is sacred and must remain so.' Sounds like he's confused about the difference between civil marriage and its religious counterpart. Or perhaps he's forgotten about separation of church and state," Gandy said. "Civil marriage is a legal right, not an ideological playground. It's not about what you believe or don't believe--this is about what is fair and just. Heterosexual couples don't have a monopoly on love, and shouldn't have a monopoly on marriage. My marriage won't be threatened or undermined by making civil marriage rights available to same-sex couples, and neither will anyone else's."

Heterosexual married couples are afforded more than a thousand legal protections and benefits in state and federal law which are inaccessible to committed same-sex couples. Benefits of civil marriage include access to health care and medical decision making for your partner and your children; parenting rights; Social Security; taxation, inheritance and other government benefits; as well as the simple ability to pool resources to buy or transfer property without adverse tax treatment.

"Our Constitution is about expanding and defining rights and liberties, not limiting them," Gandy said. "Lawmakers who support a sweeping federal mandate to keep same-sex couples from the legal rights inherent in civil marriage are pandering to prejudice. This stems from the same narrow-minded and bigoted perspective that fueled miscegenation laws. In the 1960's, the civil rights movement fought for interracial couples have marriage rights--and won. We're fighting for marriage rights again, this time for same-sex couples. We'll win this struggle too."

###

Sign up to receive press releases by email.