News Intelligence Analysis
2004 Federal Marriage Amendment
2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State,
shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents
thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a
man and a woman.
For an excellent discussion on this amendment click here.
Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only
of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor
state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital
status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
couples or groups.
Discussion:
2002 Federal Marriage Amendment
- H.J. Res 56
Defines marriage as union of man and woman only
The following is the complete text of a congressional resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would legally
define marriage as the union between a man and a woman only.
The resolution (H.J Res 56) calling for the Federal Marriage
Amendment, was introduced before the House of Representatives
on May 21, 2003. Backers of the amendment say its ratification
would preclude state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)
HJ 56 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 2003 Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
"Article --
"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Send a letter to the editor about this amendment Pending Dominionist Bills in Congress
U.
S. Senator Wayne Allard Re-Introduces
Federal Marriage Amendment Bill
An analysis of why the revised version still denies
the legal incidents of marriage to gays
By Katherine Yurica
The Yurica Report learned that U.S. Senator
Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) re-introduced his Federal
Marriage Amendment (FMA) in the Senate on March
22, 2004. "I have made some technical changes to
fine-tune the language of the FMA," Senator Allard
said. "The new language makes the intent of the
legislation even clearer: to protect marriage in this
country as the union
between a man and a woman...
For Whom the Bell Tolls
Dominionists New Version
of
Marriage Amendment Fails Again
By Katherine Yurica
The Federal Marriage Amendment
Bill was
amended on March 22, 2004. The text of the
revised version is just as murky as the original.
Read about the problems that still exist. The
Yurica Report's analysis is here.
If you have not read For
Whom the Bell Tolls,
by Katherine Yurica read the complete revised
version now.
Backers Revise Amendment
on Marriage
By CARL HULSE
March 23, 2004
WASHINGTON, The Congressional authors
of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban
gay marriage introduced a slightly reworded
version on Monday, saying the changes were
intended to make it clear that they do not seek
to bar same-sex civil unions
allowed by state law.
HR 3313: The Marriage Protection Act Bill Passed by the House of Representatives: Trying to Make Sense of the Nonsensical By Vickram David Amar One of America's leading constitutional experts analyzes the bill passed - almost entirely along party lines -- by the House of Representatives on July 22. The bill is known as the "Marriage Protection Act (MPA)." Congressional Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot again. Vic Amar writes, "The MPA is intended to bar federal courts from forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in another state. But as drafted, it does nothing of the sort. Indeed, if enacted it might even lead to more interstate recognition of same-sex marriages."
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright
© 2006 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.