Some points going around the Hill re: FMA:
Marriage Protection – Just Discrimination Against Homosexuals?
***Gays and lesbians have the right to live how they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the entire nation.
***It is horribly offensive to accuse the vast majority of Americans of bigotry for wanting to defend and preserve traditional marriage. It defies common sense.
***Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996 by votes of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. DOMA defines marriage as man-woman for purposes of federal statutes. Bigots?
***Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Bigot?
***60% of California voters approved a state Defense of Marriage Act in 2000 that defined marriage as man-woman. Bigots?
***More than 3/4 of states have laws on the books attempting to protect traditional marriage. Bigots?
***Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage by a 2-1 margin. Bigots?
***The government licenses and encourages marriage not to discriminate but to promote the ideal environment for the raising of children.
***Consider the Judiciary Committee testimony of one of Boston’s most respected African American leaders, Rev. Richard Richardson of St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, and Children’s Services of Roxbury, Inc:
“I want to state something very clearly, without equivocation, hesitation, or doubt. The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about discrimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination.”
“The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery. From what I can tell, every U.S. Senator – both Democrat and Republican – who has talked about marriage has said that they support traditional marriage laws and oppose what the Massachusetts court did. Are they all guilty of discrimination?”
***Nor is the defense of marriage about equal access to government benefits – no matter how many times you hear the pro-same-sex marriage forces say that it is. Nothing in the Marriage Amendment prevents the state or federal governments from granting any benefits they choose to homosexuals or same-sex couples.