US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[concerned about politics]

Starting with Ted Kennedy on down.

I think he's been told he's dieing. A gut feeling.

[Always Right]

Higher Taxes, Don't fight the terrorists, let guys marry other guys. A "perfect storm".

Yep, and Howard Dean will Captain the Democrats right to the eye of that storm. This is setting up pretty well, despite the hundreds of millions in soft money Soro's is throwing against Bush.

[RightWhale]

Do not further modify the Constitution.

[apackof2]

Here is one site, there are others, (sorry I forgot how to post a link)

On Sunday, Sept. 7, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., addressed the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the Lynchburg, Va., church I have pastored since its founding in 1956. I wish every Christian in America could have heard this courageous lady explain why she has sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, the proposed constitutional amendment designed to preserve the sanctity of marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman.

In the present socio-political climate, it is not widely popular to be promoting this traditional idea, but Mrs. Musgrave is boldly spearheading the effort to permanently safeguard marriage from activist judges and politically correct lawmakers.

Presently, more than 80 cosponsors have signed onto the bill. She said that Christian activists will play a large role in seeing the bill passed.

"Many people think Christians should be quiet in the public square; they think that Christians should not have a voice in the public square," Mrs. Musgrave said. "But I don't agree with that. I think it is very important that we have our voice heard in that square."

Of course, changing the Constitution will by no means be an easy thing. An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by 38 states. In our favor is the fact that 36 states have already enacted laws banning homosexual marriage. Furthermore, in 1996, when Congress passed a federal ban on homosexual marriages, 85 percent of the Senate and 79 percent of the House voted for the ban.

Mrs. Musgrave, who has been married to her husband Steve for 35 years – they met at Bible camp as teen-agers – noted that, even in traditionally liberal states like Hawaii and California, ballot initiatives for homosexual marriage have been voted down by the people. This, she believes, is a positive indication that her Federal Marriage Initiative will ultimately be passed.

Mrs. Musgrave said that while marriage has become trivial to many Americans (our 50 percent divorce rate serves as evidence), it is important for those who revere the sanctity of marriage to protect it.

"Just because the institution of marriage is not held in the respect that we should give it does not mean that we should do away with the definition of marriage," said the 54-year-old mother of four and grandmother of five.

Mrs. Musgrave added that it is the role of the Christian community to protect marriage, specifically within the church setting.

"We need to ask God's protection over our marriages," she said. Mrs. Musgrave also encouraged older Christians to set a "good example for young people," adding that those with years of successful marriage "need to counsel young people and help them choose their mates wisely."

In closing, Rep. Musgrave asked Christians nationwide to help her ensure that marriage remains safe.

I agree that the only way to put marriage out of reach of fanatical judges and militant lawmakers is to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, period.

Polls indicate that 80 percent of Americans believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but the aggressive forces against it are actively working to redefine marriage and the family. We absolutely must work together to keep the sanctity of marriage out of their reach, forever.

Once again, I urge my friends to sign our petition to preserve traditional marriage. We already have hundreds of thousands of signatures, but are seeking 1 million Americans who will support the Federal Marriage Amendment. The petition, with your name affixed, will be forwarded specifically to your U.S. representative and two U.S. senators, as well as to the entire Congress and to President Bush.

Rep. Musgrave has expressed great thanks to those who have already signed the petition. For those who have yet to sign the petition, I urge you to join us in the effort to preserve marriage in America.

http://www.onemanonewoman.com/ .

[Belial]

Both are needed

I disagree. I think fundamentalists just can't stand the idea of homosexual unions being legalized because it undermines the status of their religious beliefs.

Besides, proposing a constitutional amendmant to address a niche cultural issue has a very liberal slant.

[Always Right]

Do not further modify the Constitution.

I understand your sentiment, but unless we find a way to replace activist judges, the Constitution is a worthless document.

[Always Right]

Besides, proposing a constitutional amendmant to address a niche cultural issue has a very liberal slant.

A 'niche cultural issue'? Wow, is that some serious spin.

[Belial]

A 'niche cultural issue'? Wow, is that some serious spin.

No, really. Most Americans don't spend sleepless nights contemplating gay marriage. I think the only people that are deeply interested are gay activists and right-wing ideologues. Oh, and the media, who profit from the drama of it all.

[concerned about politics]

Police have a warrent, and they're searching Michel Jacksons ranch. Ambulences there. Something about abuse mentioned. 12 year old boy. Allogation brought forward.

[Eagle Eye]

This issue is NOT a Constitutional matter.

[RightWhale]

niche cultural issue

It's a large niche, but even so we shouldn't modify the Constitution.

[ChefKeith]

Messing with the U.S. Constitution is a very dangerous thing to do, there are those out there that would just love to gut it of the 1st/2nd/4th/5th Amendments.

The only thing that will solve the problem You are wanting to fix is MORALS.

[familyofman]

Ammendments:
Marriage
Balanced Budget
Ten Commandments

Just add your ammendments here, it will make you feel better. Even though none of them will pass - this is free therapy for anger management. If the ammendments don't make it - hold your breath until everyone agrees to do things your way.

[WOSG]

"This issue is NOT a Constitutional matter. "

Try telling that to the Mass supreme Court who in this queer ruling used their phony interpretation of their constitution to upset a law passed recently and create an oxymoronic privilege of 'gay marriage' that heretofore didnt exist!

Whatever happened to rule of law as written? Overturned by judicial tyranny!

[gridlock]

Government has been busy undermining marriage for the last 40 years. On every issue and on every front government has chosen the path of destruction, from welfare incentives to out-of-wedlock births to the marriage penalty to rough treatment of men in Family Court. It is hard to imagine how government could be more hostile to marriage if it tried.

Government has a role in the civil law, deciding matters of property, child custody, and the like. These matters are dealt with in the civil court outside of marriage already. Why should a government definition of marriage be required to determine deposition of joint property or what is in the best interests of a child?

Marriage is a sacred covenant. If one is religious, it is a promise made to God. For those who are not, it is at minimum a promise made to the spouse, and to any subsequent children. What can government add to that?

Government insinuation into the institution of marriage can only lead to mayhem. Government will not limit access to divorce, so divorce becomes the norm. Most people who get a civil divorce consider themselves divorces, with nary a thought to the solemn promises made to each other and to God. The government has said they are divorced, so that's all there is to it. A judge has replaced morality. Government displaces. It does not coexist. Gays have been getting married for the last fifty years, but it is the governmental sanction of those marriages that will elevate them to equal stature in the eyes of society.

People will do stupid things always. People will make poor choices and a compassionate society will always pick up the pieces. It is beyond the power of government to prevent people from doing so. The destruction that results when government tries far outwieghs any benefit derived.

As for the George Will book, I'll pick it up.

[freetradenotfree]

First woman approved as head of Massachusetts high court

BOSTON (AP) — Justice Margaret Marshall was elevated to chief justice of Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday, becoming the first woman to head the nation's oldest appellate court.

Ms. Marshall, a former chief counsel at Harvard University, overcame charges of anti-Catholic bias to win a 6-3 confirmation vote by the Governor's Council, which votes on nominations by the governor.

"1 follow in the footsteps of giants," Ms. Marshall said. "1 do so with humility, and with a deep commitment to the rule of law."

Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa,

was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996. She was at Harvard at the time and had previously been in private practice.

Her nomination to head the 307-year-old court was marred when Cardinal Bernard Law raised concerns that she harbored anti-Catholic bias.

Law, who heads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, wrote last month to Gov. Paul Cellucci and said Ms. Marshall was "open to serious charges of anti-Catholicism."

He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an anti-abortion message.

Catholic groups also feared she could not be impartial on abortion cases because she once served on an abortion clinic's board of trustees. Ms. Marshall denied her personal views would affect her role as jurist.

Law later retracted his complaint after speaking with Ms. Marshall, who is Protestant. "She gave me her assurance that she was not anti-Catholic," he said, "and I have absolutely no reason to not accept her word on that."

Is Justice Margaret Marshall a U.S Citizens?

[WOSG]

The liberals dont need constitutional amendments as much these days. They just get liberal justices to invent the rights they are calling for.

The real solution is to impeach these judicial tyrants and return the rule of law to its proper meaning. Dont you agree?

we shouldnt need a constitutional amendment to say what the laws on the books are already saying, dont you agree?

"I think fundamentalists just can't stand the idea of homosexual unions being legalized because it undermines the status of their religious beliefs. "

where do you get the nutty idea its only 'fundamentalist' that want to protect marriage? Certainly, the militant secularists cant stand the idea of traditionalism being preserved because it undermines the status of their deviancy. But I wouldnt suggest that is in any way an argument for or against their ideas!

[concerned about politics]

Pro - homo Liberals are praising the catholics in Mass. They're saying how "cool" they are. (DUmmies.com)