Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Download Folder

0 items

Houston Voice, May 26, 2006
File 006
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Voice, May 26, 2006 - File 006. 2006-05-26. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. December 14, 2017. http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/3769/show/3753.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(2006-05-26). Houston Voice, May 26, 2006 - File 006. Montrose Voice. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/3769/show/3753

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Voice, May 26, 2006 - File 006, 2006-05-26, Montrose Voice, University of Houston Libraries, accessed December 14, 2017, http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/3769/show/3753.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Voice, May 26, 2006
Contributor
  • Crain, Chris
  • Ford, Nancy
Publisher Window Media
Date May 26, 2006
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
  • Gay liberation movement
Place
  • Houston, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 31485329
Rights In Copyright: This item is protected by copyright. Copyright to this resource is held by the creator or current rights holder, and the resource is provided here for educational purposes. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without permission of the copyright owner. Users assume full responsibility for any infringement of copyright or related rights.
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 006
Transcript HOUSTON VOICE www.houstonvoice.com MAY 26, 2006 5 national nevus Amendment fight gets contentious on Hill Some predict changes to wording to entice moderates By JOSHUA LYNSEN As a Senate vote nears on a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, some political observers are speculating that the wording of the amendment might be shortened in a last-ditch effort to draw support from moderate senators. As approved May 18 by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the proposed constitutional amendment bans gay marriage and any equivalent, which presumably includes civil unions and perhaps some domestic partnerships and other forms of legal recognition for gay couples. "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," the proposed amendment reads. "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status of the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." But there's new talk on Capitol Hill of removing the second sentence before senators vote on the amendment next month. The rewrite, apparently sought by some conservatives, would have lasting and unpredictable repercussions because of its vague wording, gay rights activists said. The revision also is seen by some as an effort to woo moderate senators. Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Jay Smith Brown said more senators would likely support the revised, one-sentence amendment. He noted, however, that HRC remains "cautiously optimistic" the Marriage Protection Amendment will fail regardless of tin* wording. "I think a lot of senators will see through this attempt." Smith Brown said. "It's still discrimination, and it's still putting that stain on the Constitution." Changes to the federal marriage amendment were previously discussed and dis- buildyourbusiness CONTACT ALVAREZ VO,Ce ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE /B5298490 or calvarez a houstonvoice.com missed. Smith Brown said, but cited "sources on the Hill" for the possibility that dropping the second sentence might be offered up again on the Senate floor next month. Patrick Guerriero, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, discounted the rewrite as a last-ditch attempt to win votes. "Basically it's a sign of desperation because they're about to lose again," he said. "That's the piece I think is pretty clear here." But Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union office in Washington, D.C, said any abbreviation might not be intended to draw new support "The motivation doesn't seem to be to pick up votes," he said. "The motivation seems to be there's an Internal fight among religious right groups on how much dam age they want to cause same-sex couples and their children." As the Senate vote nears, Anders said he is skeptical that anyone would seek to revise the proposed amendment. The contentious Senate Judiciary Committee vote, 10-8, followed party lines. "There might be one or two votes in the Senate that are in play one way or the other," he said. "But, literally, the civil rights and religious coalitions have met with almost all the Senate offices at this point. The conclusion is the votes are basically where they were two years ago." Debate grows tense Although no senator has yet proposed changing the wording, discussion of the amendment is becoming ever more tense. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote May 18 was marked by a heated exchange between Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Russ Feingold (D- Wis.), a presumed presidential candidate who recently announced his support for equal marriage rights for gay couples. Specter and Feingold argued during the committee meeting. Feingold eventually walked out, and Specter wished him "good riddance." "I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Specter shouted after Feingold said he opposed the amendment and treasured the Constitution. Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold says debate over the federal marriage amendment needs to be conducted in a transparent way and in front of cameras. (Photo by Mickey Welsh/AP) "If you want to leave, good riddance.'' Specter said. "I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman. See ya," Feingold responded before leaving the meeting. Feingold later issued a statement condemning Specter's decision to hold the May 18 meeting in a small committee room where public access is limited. "[S]uch a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done," Feingold said. "I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor." Broad 'implications for our culture' Experts and politicians agree that attempts to rewrite or abbreviate the proposed amendment would have little effect on the vote. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Voice this week that reducing the amendment to one sentence would "change no minds and very few votes." Frank, who is gay, said President Bush and other Republicans are using the amend ment to divert congressional attention from more serious issues, such as preparing for the hurricane season that begins June 1, or addressing economic issues. "We screwed up Katrina, wages aren't going up, but how about those fags getting married?" he said. "This isn't about making public policy. They're trying to divert attention by gay bashing." The amendments' backers dispute that charge, saying Senate Republicans are responding to a constituency that helped the party keep control of Congress and the White House two years ago. Barrett Duke, spokesperson for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Baptist Press that gay marriage must be stopped. "We just don't see anything in American life at this point that has greater implications for our culture than the same-sex marriage issue," he said. "Just about every area of life will be impacted if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land." Unintended consequences? Previously called the Federal Marriage Amendment, a Senate vote on the proposal in 2004 failed with 48 voting in favor and 50 opposing. Also at that time, the House voted 227- 186 in favor of the proposal. The measure needed 29 more votes in the House and 19 more votes in the Senate to reach the two- thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment. Political observers have forecasted this year's Senate vote at 52-48 in favor of the measure, mostly due to Democratic seats won by the GOP in the 2004 election. Such a vote still would fall 17 votes shy of the necessary two-thirds majority. Anders said most senators are steadfast in their support or opposition, and rewriting the amendment would do little to change any votes. "The bottom line for most of the senators and most of the people who have looked at the amendment," he said, "is that whichever version comes to the floor, the problems are the same." buildyourbusiness 90 - i*AS$( ..TUEAS l-MIHMil voice CONTACT ED ALVAREZ ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE 7135298490 or ealvarez a houstonvoice.coin
File Name uhlib_31485329_n1335_005.jpg