Skip to comments.Federal Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate
Posted on 11/26/2003 2:47:02 PM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Three Republicans introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday. The proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment along with co-sponsors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
The Alliance For Marriage, the group that drafted the proposed amendment, said its introduction in the Senate confirms that momentum is growing for a constitutional defense of marriage - especially in light of the recent court ruling in Massachusetts that cleared the way for same-sex couples to legally marry.
"Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage.
He noted that a Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in the House in May now has 100 co-sponsors.
But homosexual advocacy groups said they are outraged, and they accused Republicans of grossly misusing the U.S. Constitution.
"The U.S. Constitution is no place to play election-year politics, particularly when our nation is facing other critical issues such as an uncertain economy, threats to our homeland, the safety of our troops in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch in a press release.
The Constitution should only be used to expand individual rights, not to single out a group of Americans for discrimination, Birch added.
But supporters of traditional marriage say a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the institution of marriage from courts that go beyond their constitutional mandates.
The Family Research Council is urging conservatives to contact their senators during the holiday recess to express support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The battle lines are being drawn and this is where the dems will meet their demise.
Watch the stupidity flow!
Well, the amendment will take 2/3rds, so I don't know if a fillibuster fits in, unless the libs want to prevent a roll call vote on the matter, which they probably do.
You wanna bet .. just watch them
Votes required to invoke cloture - 60
Votes required to pass a Constitutional amendment - 67
Then why introduce it this year? It would be better to introduce it next year and vote on it just prior to the 2004 DemocRAT national convention.
Think about it.
I thought it about and here's what I came up with. You're either a liar or a lunatic.
Give reasons for your position and you'll look more like a thinking being.
Hitler tried to amend the Weimar Constitution to persecute Jews???
Wow. Revisionism reaches new heights!
Think about it.
Really? We're rounding up homosexuals and putting them in concentration camps??? We're exterminating homosexuals???
Don't you EVER, EVER dare to compare your "imagined" pain of discrimination to real discrimination that really happened in Hilter's Germany.
Its this kind of unsubstantiated hysterical outburst from the "love that dare not speak its name" crowd that begs me to say: "when the hell will you shutup?"
It is you who needs to engage your brain before you put words to window.
Defend it or withdraw it, the choice is yours.
Christians are putting 6 million homosexuals to death?
Homosexuality in not natural
. "Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews."
I'm sure some of Jewish brethern may take exception to this statement.
"Think about it".
I've thought about it. You may need help:)
You're right... just the other day I saw a trainload of homosexuals being shipped to that new concentration camp next to the Starbucks.....
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.
Such a statement is perverted, no pun intended.
Think about it.
The trained monkeys in Congress. Who else? When they aren't spending money like drunken sailors, they are wasting air on pointless crap like this.
Think about it.
I thought about it ... and then came to the conclusion that anyone who would suggest such a thing ... is on the wrong web site
Ok, I know I am going to catch hell for this, but I believe that this is in fact overstepping the authority of the government.
Each Church should decide if they want to allow marriages of couples of the same sex. That is not the responsibility of the government.
Then, the laws should be re-written in such a way that there is no reward or penalty to people who are either married or not married.
The government should not be encroaching upon the rights of individuals to live as they choose. (Yes, I know, they do that a lot anyway. And when they do, it is also wrong).
Yes, I also know that marriages do not require a church or Church representative to perform them in order to be valid. Maybe that is where the answer lies:
Marriage = Holy Matrimony = Church blessed
License of Domestic Partnership = non Marriage = non church = same legal protections.
First, I like your tag line. One of the best moments in Blade Runner, bar none.
Second, you're wrong on this one. We're fighting two battles: the first against terrorism; the second, the attack on our culture.
God thought about it.
His decision is good enough for me.
If the judiciary had not over stepped its bounds, as it recently did in the Mass ruling, I would tend to agree. But the fact is, only by ammending the constitution can we put the judicial system in its place.
That Sir is EXACTLY right ... and in my opinion ... it is the later war which is the more dangerous to our Republic
What a bunch of crap! Sorry, no sale here. Jews are a race by birth. Homosexuality is a life-style by choice. Pedal that garbage elsewhere. The issue is piracy. Hands off the ship of 'marriage.' It is well-guarded. Sail your own ship if you think it is sea-worthy. Fly your own UNION if you are proud of it, and transport your own 'cargo' by another means. Thank you very much.
It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals.
Are you against civil marriages, or are you just used to them to the point where you don't think about them?
The term that comes to mind here is homophobia.
You asserted that "Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews." That is a LIE Show me the concentration camps. Show me evidence of mass extermination of homosexuals - here - in the USA.
Until you're willing to amend and adjust that irrational and hysterical outburst, there is no point trying to debate anything with me.
I cannot debate with someone who is not grounded in reality.
No, actually it's Christians responding to attacks by Queer nation on our value systems. Deal with it.
The battle is joined.
None of whcih come from the infamous North East.
|Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [AL-4]||Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2]|
|Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [LA-5]||Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [AL-6]|
|Rep Baker, Richard H. - 11/20/2003 [LA-6]||Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [NC-10]|
|Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3]||Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6]|
|Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [TX-6]||Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [CO-7]|
|Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [OH-8]||Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [AR-3]|
|Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]||Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1]|
|Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 11/21/2003 [FL-5]||Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26]|
|Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12]||Rep Burton, Dan - 11/20/2003 [IN-5]|
|Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [CA-44]||Rep Cannon, Chris - 11/21/2003 [UT-3]|
|Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7]||Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [TX-31]|
|Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [IN-2]||Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [NC-6]|
|Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8]||Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [IL-8]|
|Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [WY]||Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [TX-7]|
|Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [CA-50]||Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]|
|Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [TN-4]||Rep Deal, Nathan - 11/20/2003 [GA-10]|
|Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4]||Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4]|
|Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [MO-8]||Rep Everett, Terry - 11/20/2003 [AL-2]|
|Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [FL-24]||Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [AZ-6]|
|Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [VA-4]||Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [AZ-2]|
|Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [NJ-5]||Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]|
|Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5]||Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [VA-6]|
|Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [MN-1]||Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4]|
|Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [PA-4]||Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8]|
|Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [AZ-5]||Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [CA-2]|
|Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2]||Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 11/21/2003 [MO-9]|
|Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52]||Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [IL-6]|
|Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6]||Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5]|
|Rep Janklow, William J. - 11/20/2003 [SD]||Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3]|
|Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3]||Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [FL-8]|
|Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6]||Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5]|
|Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [GA-1]||Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2]|
|Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [KY-4]||Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [IL-16]|
|Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [MI-11]||Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7]|
|Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [CA-42]||Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]|
|Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [NC-9]||Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 11/20/2003 [TX-19]|
|Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9]||Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [NE-3]|
|Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [NM-2]||Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6]|
|Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7]||Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [PA-5]|
|Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [MS-3]||Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]|
|Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [CA-11]||Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [KY-5]|
|Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3]||Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [CA-46]|
|Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2]||Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [VA-2]|
|Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [TX-32]||Rep Shadegg, John B. - 11/20/2003 [AZ-3]|
|Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [PA-9]||Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [NJ-4]|
|Rep Smith, Lamar - 11/21/2003 [TX-21]||Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3]|
|Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [FL-6]||Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]|
|Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [OK-1]||Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [CO-6]|
|Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [LA-3]||Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [MS-4]|
|Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [KS-4]||Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [PA-15]|
|Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [OH-3]||Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [LA-1]|
|Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [TN-3]||Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [FL-15]|
|Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [KY-1]||Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [MS-1]|
|Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2]|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.