Vote No on the Federal Marriage Amendment

Take Action Now!

Your Senator's Stand
Your Representative's Stand
Support HRC
Quotes Against FMA
Americans Speak Out
Background Info
Share Your Story

Background Information

Message Points

  1. The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is discriminatory.
    • It is wrong to single out gays and lesbians for discrimination.
    • The proposed amendment goes beyond defining marriage and could deny gay families fundamental protections such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and health care benefits. There is nothing pro-family about that.
    • Leading legal scholars agree that the amendment could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples, like the right to partner health benefits or fair taxation upon the death of a partner – even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them.
  2. The Federal Marriage Amendment undermines the Constitution.
    • It is wrong to write discrimination into the Constitution.
    • Throughout American history, the Constitution has been amended to expand and protect the rights and liberties of the American people. It has been amended to abolish slavery, and give women and young people the right to vote. It should not be used to single out some Americans for discrimination.
    • Amending the Constitution is very rare and is only done to address great public policy need. In our Constitution's 214 year history, it was first amended to include the Bill of Rights in 1791. Since then, it has only been amended 17 times.
    • It is wrong to use the Constitution as a political tool to motivate base voters.
  3. The Federal Marriage Amendment is not what Congress should be focusing on.
    • Between the war in Iraq , rising healthcare costs, and the continuing threat of terrorism, Congress should not be focusing on a Constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples.

Key Dates in the Battle Over the Federal Marriage Amendment

  • January 24, 2005 – Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., re-introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment, S.J. Res. 1, in the U.S. Senate.
  • March 17, 2005 – Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., introduced a separate bill in the House, H.J. Res. 39 that would discriminate against GLBT couples.
  • April 13, 2005 – The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights held a hearing on the MPA.  Dr. Kathleen Moltz testified [PDF] about the negative effects of this amendment on same-sex couples and their families. HRC President  Joe Solmonese also submitted written testimony [PDF].
  • October 20, 2005 – The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights held a hearing titled "An Examination of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage." Testifying in support of marriage equality were  Christopher Harris, M.D. [PDF], assistant professor of Pediatrics at the Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt University, and  Professor Michael Seidman [PDF] of Georgetown University Law Center.  Professor Nancy E. Dowd [PDF], co-director of the Center for Children and Families, and HRC President  Joe Solmonese [PDF] submitted written testimony supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples.
  • November 9, 2005 – The Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution marked up S.J. Res. 1, the Federal Marriage Amendment. It was voted out of this committee to the full committee by a vote of 5-4 and is awaiting action by the full Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • May 9, 2006 – The Coalition Against Discrimination in the Constitution hosted the first briefing in a series with speakers from various civil rights organizations condemning the federal marriage amendment: Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Lisalyn Jacobs, Legal Momentum; Gabriela Lemus, League of United Latin American Citizens; Rabbi Michael Namath, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Seth Galanter, Morrison and Foerster.
  • May 16, 2006 – Conservative opponents of the federal marriage amendment, former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) and Wyoming State Senator John Hanes (R), briefed Senate staff on their opposition to amending the Constitution.
  • May 18, 2006 – The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the federal marriage amendment (S.J. Res. 1) on party-line vote of 10-8, thus allowing the legislation to move forward to the entire Senate for debate.
  • May 22, 2006 – Religious leaders comprising the Clergy For Fairness held a press conference and lobbied Congress voicing their concerns about the federal marriage amendment.
  • May 23, 2006 – Forty Generation Equality college students and young people visited Senate offices voicing their opposition to a constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples.
  • June 6, 2006 – Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) introduced H.J. Res. 88, a new version of the federal marriage amendment. Musgrave also introduced the amendment in House in 2004, which failed by a vote of 227-186.
  • June 7, 2006 – After two days of debate, the Senate defeated the federal marriage amendment, S.J. Res 1, by a vote of 49-48. Seven Republicans joined 41 Democrats in voting down the measure. See how your Senator voted.

…And God is angry with our nation in even tolerating the thought of same-sex marriage.
– Rev. Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority; CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports, 2/24/2004

View HRC's Ad
View HRC's Ad