From WhyNotWiki

Contents 1 Federal 2 Neutral reporting 3 For 4 Against 4.1 Think the amendment is pro-discriminatory, anti-equality for gays 4.2 Think the amendment is pro-hate, anti-equality for gays 4.3 Think it's merely diversionary tactic 4.4 For protecting marriage, but think the amendment is not the right way 5 Massachusetts

[edit] Federal

Frank Phillips, Globe Staff (May 17, 2007). Legislative support slim for same-sex marriage ban: Efforts heat up to keep issue off 2008 ballot (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/17/legislative_support_slim_for_same_sex_marriage_ban/). Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is clinging to a razor-thin margin in the Legislature, as major political figures from Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill step up their attempts to kill the measure.

With a lawmaker who opposes same-sex marriage eyeing a new job and several others ready to switch their votes, Beacon Hill leaders and gay political activists are convinced that they are within at most four votes, and perhaps as few as three, of stopping the amendment from reaching the 2008 ballot and preventing a heated campaign that could draw energy and money away from the Democratic Party's national efforts.

According to senior State House sources, state Representative Brian P. Wallace, a South Boston Democrat who has voted for the amendment, is a leading candidate for a lucrative post at the Massachusetts Sports and Entertainment Commission, a move supported by legislative leaders seeking to kill the amendment. Wallace's departure from the Legislature is likely to take place before the amendment is voted on, the sources said. Wallace did not return calls made to his office and home.

At least four lawmakers who had initially voted for the gay marriage ban in January have signaled that they may switch their votes, the sources said, giving same-sex marriage supporters growing confidence they can kill the measure and spare Massachusetts from becoming the epicenter once again in the country's cultural wars during a presidential election. On May 17, 2004, just six months before the last presidential contest, the nation's first legal same-sex weddings took place in Massachusetts, following a landmark state high court decision.

The stepped-up lobbying and reports of changed votes come as same-sex marriage advocates celebrate the third anniversary of the first such weddings today with a party and a $750,000 media campaign.

Google News

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_525/sodomylawsend3.html Sodomy Laws’ End 3 Years On

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/OPINION/206210313/1008/OPINION Old Glory can take it | Ocala.com | Star-Banner | Ocala, Fla.

http://www.masslive.com/metroeastplus/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1150790165325510.xml&coll=1 Gay union opponents embrace scare tactics

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/133009 My opinion Steve Chapman : Gay-marriage amendment is just a futile quest | www.azstarnet.com ®

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20060623/opinion/105389.shtml Same-sex marriage poses legal concerns - gainesvilletimes.com

http://baywindows.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=29F0EA09C6D74A8A86FC018372D23401 Bay Windows - New England's largest GLBT newspaper | Current Issue | Articles | So they say

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/192006b.asp News from Agape Press

http://www.outinnashville.com/home/news.asp?articleid=29327 OUTINNASHVILLE.COM - STATE LAWMAKER DISMISSES CRITICISM OVER SAYING 'QUEERS'

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/abernethy/060622.shtml PopMatters | Columns | Michael Abernethy | Queer, Isn't It? | And I'm Proud to be an American, Where at Least I Know... I'm a Second Class Citizen

http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/448159.html

Maybe the Marriage Protection Amendment considered by the U.S. Senate should contain a provision that would ban the airing of "Wife Swap," family entertainment on ABC, Mondays at 8 p.m. If the intention of the amendment is the protection of the sanctity of marriage and the stability of society, why focus only on same-sex marriage? I daresay there are many other barriers facing marriages and our society, not the least of which is a sanctimonious politician.

Nancy W. Hardin

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.19209/article_detail.asp The American Enterprise: Protecting Traditional Marriage

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080010 Media Matters - Dobson compared Federal Marriage Amendment to civil rights bills and slave liberation

[edit] Neutral reporting

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jun06/Art_Jun06_22.html How senators voted on the marriage amendment

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/radio060306.htm Bush Again Backs Marriage Protection Amendment

http://www.inde-news.com/articles.cfm?ArticleID=062006123548 The Woodstock Independent

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/82006a.asp News from Agape Press

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060610/COLUMNISTS0402/606100326/1326 Visible Politics, Invisible Truths | theledger.com

[edit] For

http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/06122006news35253.cfm Columbian.com - Serving Clark County, Washington

Can't redefine marriage

It is so important to protect the foundational principles that make this country great. People have the choice of all kinds of relationships in a free society, but marriage is marriage. Marriage cannot be redefined. It is a natural, dare I say, God-given institution that deserves protection, and should be honored above all other relationships, save that of your Creator.

I have friends, I have brothers, I have sisters, moms, dads, uncles, aunts, cousins, business associates, but marriage is the pinnacle of human relationships. It goes without saying that marriage is an honorable relationship between one man and one women. Good marriages, and stable families are the foundation for great nations.

Do not discount a marriage protection amendment as some sort of political posturing. Marriage has strong bipartisan support, and is being attacked by a few judges who think they can overthrow the will of the people. An amendment to the Constitution would put an end to this nonsense. There will eventually be an amendment but it must be based on the will of the people, not based on activist judges conspiring with a very small minority.

I urge legislators to vote for a marriage protection amendment.

Keith Mathison

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15356 HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Protect Marriage, Preserve Society by Michael Lewis

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/chuckcolson/2006/06/02/199668.html Townhall.com :: Columns :: Marriage and crime by Chuck Colson - Jun 2, 2006

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/14788790.htm Philadelphia Inquirer | 06/11/2006 | One Last Thing | Conservatives must regroup

Religious groups that object to homosexuality are already having their freedoms challenged. At Tufts University, a campus Christian group lost its funding in 2000 and was placed on probation when it told a bisexual student that, although she was welcomed as a member, she could not take a leadership role in the organization. Similar disputes have occurred at other schools, including Harvard, Rutgers, and the University of North Carolina.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67123 U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Knights of Columbus to Redouble Efforts to Seek Marriage Protection..."

"But lawsuits are threatening traditional marriage laws in nine states, and in four of those states trial courts have already discovered a 'right' to same-sex marriage using the same foolish reasoning that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court used two years ago," Anderson continued. "And most ominously, a federal court has found Nebraska's state constitutional amendment protecting marriage to be a violation of the federal constitution. Clearly, the only thing that will stop out-of- control judges from destroying marriage is a federal constitutional amendment."

...

But because the church would not recognize gay marriage, its license was not renewed. In Boston, the Catholic Church is now out of the adoption business.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15505 HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Why Did Hagel Vanish for Marriage Vote? by Peter Sprigg

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/14845464.htm Journal Gazette | 06/18/2006 | Marriage debate critical to society

http://www.outinoklahomacity.com/home/news.asp?articleid=29320 OUTINOKLAHOMACITY.COM - OKLAHOMA CONGRESSMEN SEEK VOTE ON GAY MARRIAGE BAN

http://www.sovo.com/2006/6-16/view/editorial/crain.cfm Southern Voice Online

http://www.rcab.org/Pilot/2006/ps060623/Editorials-1.html Archdiocese of Boston -06/23/2006 - No tricks

Fredericksburg.com - Senate ignores the will of the people, and fails to protect marriage:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50776 WorldNetDaily: 'Public servants' … oh, really?

http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060526/OPINION03/605260309/1014 The Daily Advertiser - www.theadvertiser.com - Lafayette, LA

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3372 Marriage Matters - Support the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment - Catholic Online

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bwilson/060619 Marriage amendment: We don't need Senate approval

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/14865815.htm Philadelphia Daily News | 06/21/2006 | Letters | Gay marriage a real issue

YOUR EDITORIAL and John Baer's column (June 7) scoffed at the state House vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment as "a tired wedge" and "bogus issue."

All cultures have held marriage to be the wedding of one man and one woman for the obvious possibility of producing children, as well as the stability of society. No reasonable person can deny that homosexual unions, incapable of any possibility of offspring, are, by that fact, the antithesis of marriage.

Homosexual marriage would change the definition to be nothing more than that of a "committed relationship." If marriage is simply an emotional commitment, by what twist of reasoning could polygamy (recently legalized in Europe), polyandry, or worse, be prohibited?

A tired, wedge and bogus issue? I think not.

Bill Swety, Schwenksville, Pa.

[edit] Against

http://www.pennlive.com/letters/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1150321211123410.xml&coll=1 Matter of fairness

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37447/ AlterNet: Blogs: The Mix: Krauthammer on icky gays …

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/06/another_day_ano.html Good As You: Another day, another 'Concerned Woman' criticizing Kennedy

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/062006/06142006/197368 Fredericksburg.com - Heterosexuals are hurting marriage more than gays

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/OPINION02/606010309 Star-Gazette.COM - Letters

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200606%5CCUL20060606b.html Marriage Amendment Has Conservative Critics, Too -- 06/06/2006

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarymarriage0611.artjun11,0,7704773.story?coll=hc-headlines-commentary courant.com | Marriage Protection From What?

http://www.gayalliance.org/content/view/441/88/ The Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley - Remarks of President Bush on the Marriage Protection Amendment, Corrected and Annotated by Mark Agra

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNTcmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5NTE0MDMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxNA== North Jersey Media Group providing local news, sports & classifieds for Northern New Jersey!

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_2524.php Dallas Voice :: Don’t support the institution of marriage. Help destroy it

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opmcl114776323jun11,0,111468.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines Same-sex marriage: Modern federal debate - Newsday.com

[edit] Think the amendment is pro-discriminatory, anti-equality for gays

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/06/dobson_never_gi.html Good As You: Dobson never giving up; we still plan to invite him to our soon-to-be-realized gay wedding

[edit] Think the amendment is pro-hate, anti-equality for gays

http://www.southernvoice.com/2006/6-23/locallife/pride/shepard.cfm Southern Voice Online

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_164/stoptheviolence.html ‘Stop the violence,’ hundreds cry, in Village march

[edit] Think it's merely diversionary tactic

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=132463 MetroWestDailyNews.com - Columnists: Ickler: President Bush's diversionary tactics

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/060603 The Federal Marriage Amendment, a trojan horse

[edit] For protecting marriage, but think the amendment is not the right way

...

[edit] Massachusetts

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (May 18, 2007). [May not be permanent Pelosi Working to Stop Massachusetts Marriage Vote] ([May not be permanent http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU07E11 [May not be permanent]]). Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18. [Nancy Pelosi (category)]

According to The Boston Globe, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is working with state Democratic leaders in Massachusetts to kill a constructional amendment there that will finally give the citizens of the state the opportunity to vote on same-sex marriage, which was imposed by the state's high court in 2003. Pelosi, a supporter of same-sex marriage, is apparently concerned about the impact a vote on the marriage amendment would have on the 2008 elections. In the May 17 edition of The Boston Globe, reporters suggest that Pelosi has burned up the phones in recent days, warning Massachusetts legislators that their local battle over marriage may well decide the next White House occupant and the fate of Democratic control in Congress. Doing her best to peel lawmakers off their pro-marriage stance before the vote on June 14, Pelosi has allegedly won a few converts. Since Pelosi's conversations with the local House Speaker and Senate President began, as many as three votes in support of the amendment have vanished. Under Massachusetts law, at least 50 votes (25 percent of the legislature) are needed to put the issue on the ballot, and people on the ground suspect their numbers are down to 53. The "Pelosi Effect" has done some damage, considering that the amendment passed last session by a comfortable 62 votes. For many in Massachusetts, the Speaker's intrusion into local politics is unwelcome, particularly since pro-family activists are already battling an aggressive campaign from Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to silence voters, shaky promises from state officials, and an influx of liberal funds. There is obvious reason for Pelosi and others to be concerned: the amendment appears to have strong support among the citizens and a record number of signatures were collected to start this process. Mrs. Speaker, this process has worn on for four years - let the people vote!