Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/26/03 | Susan Jones

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.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; catholiclist; constitution; gay; gayagenda; gaymarriage; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; marriage; marriageamendment; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 next last

1 posted on 11/26/2003 2:47:02 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
YES!
2 posted on 11/26/2003 2:47:52 PM PST by Old Sarge (Serving YOU... on Operation Noble Eagle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it. Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid.
3 posted on 11/26/2003 2:50:58 PM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
There are no Democratic co-sponsors. I would be surprised if it gets a two thirds vote (assuming it survives the inevitable filibuster) in the Senate.
4 posted on 11/26/2003 2:52:25 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid.

The battle lines are being drawn and this is where the dems will meet their demise.

Watch the stupidity flow!

5 posted on 11/26/2003 2:56:00 PM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
""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."

Of which these peter puffers care nothing.
6 posted on 11/26/2003 2:56:31 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Those who do not accept peaceful change make a violent bloody revolution inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
bttt
7 posted on 11/26/2003 2:59:56 PM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
There are no Democratic co-sponsors. I would be surprised if it gets a two thirds vote (assuming it survives the inevitable filibuster) in the Senate.

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.

8 posted on 11/26/2003 3:01:00 PM PST by ClintonBeGone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
WOW .. that was fast .. wasn't sure they would try it
9 posted on 11/26/2003 3:05:44 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid,

You wanna bet .. just watch them

10 posted on 11/26/2003 3:06:46 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Ann Coulter had a great quote, paraphrasing, "the dems are going the way of the whig party". Let them cannibalize themselves.
11 posted on 11/26/2003 3:09:13 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
OK, it will never happen.

Constitutional amendments are next to impossible to pass, and I suspect strong opposition to this will make cowards of most state legislatures.
12 posted on 11/26/2003 3:15:52 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
If you think that was fast,you've never seen a congressional pay raise go through.
13 posted on 11/26/2003 3:24:38 PM PST by deadeye2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it.

Votes required to invoke cloture - 60
Votes required to pass a Constitutional amendment - 67

14 posted on 11/26/2003 3:33:31 PM PST by steveegg (Property tax freeze? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, RECALL - countdown is now 35 days (late update))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it. Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid.

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.

15 posted on 11/26/2003 3:34:56 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Please write your congressman about this if you haven't already!

Congress.org makes it easy:



17 posted on 11/26/2003 3:38:57 PM PST by Agitate (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ - jihadwatch.org - protestwarrior.com - congress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Quote "This is a misuse of Constitutional power, and evidence of a Constitution-destroying mindset within those supporting the amendment.

The objectives within the U.S. Constitution are contained in the words ...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

... and interfering with natural human sexuality is not one of them.

Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

Think about it.


"

DITTO THAT
18 posted on 11/26/2003 3:40:47 PM PST by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

Think about it.

I thought it about and here's what I came up with. You're either a liar or a lunatic.

19 posted on 11/26/2003 3:43:42 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
You're attacking me, not my statement.

Give reasons for your position and you'll look more like a thinking being.

20 posted on 11/26/2003 3:47:35 PM PST by thinktwice (America is truly blessed ... with George W. Bush as President..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Three Republicans introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday....<snip> Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment along with co-sponsors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Where's Rick Santorum?
21 posted on 11/26/2003 3:50:31 PM PST by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Just like Hitler?

Hitler tried to amend the Weimar Constitution to persecute Jews???

Wow. Revisionism reaches new heights!

22 posted on 11/26/2003 3:50:33 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

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?"

23 posted on 11/26/2003 3:53:43 PM PST by MrsEmmaPeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
You made the assertion pal. The assertion is that American Christians are treating homosexuals like the NAzis treated the Jews and all that implies.

It is you who needs to engage your brain before you put words to window.

Defend it or withdraw it, the choice is yours.

24 posted on 11/26/2003 3:55:01 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: I_love_weather
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

Christians are putting 6 million homosexuals to death?

25 posted on 11/26/2003 3:55:21 PM PST by BlessedBeGod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
"natural human sexuality is not one of them"

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:)

26 posted on 11/26/2003 3:55:39 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bloody hell, don't these people have something better to do? Beside wasting our tax dollars on entitlements, that is.
27 posted on 11/26/2003 3:58:19 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

You're right... just the other day I saw a trainload of homosexuals being shipped to that new concentration camp next to the Starbucks.....

28 posted on 11/26/2003 3:59:37 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
What people? Homosexuals forcing our society to pay for aids research disproportionate to the threat? Is that what you mean?
29 posted on 11/26/2003 4:01:02 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews. Think about it.

Bologna.

Homosexuals are in many ways seeking status as prividleged group under the guise of a victim. Meanwhile, Christians are being told they can't wear crosses to work and Judeo-Christian culture is being attacked by the ACLU on a daily basis. Who's the victim?

This amendment is not an attack on homosexuals. Nothing about it says you can't live your life the way you want. It merely defines marriage as what it has always been, a union between 1 man and 1 woman. Homosexuals are trying to legitimize their unions and force them to be acceptable to the next generation. And, including homosexuality under natural sexuality is not a given either.

30 posted on 11/26/2003 4:01:34 PM PST by Agitate (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ - jihadwatch.org - protestwarrior.com - congress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
good move bump
31 posted on 11/26/2003 4:03:52 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Homosexuality is not "natural human sexuality".

Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

Such a statement is perverted, no pun intended.

Think about it.

32 posted on 11/26/2003 4:04:03 PM PST by k2blader (Haruspex, beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
What people?

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.

33 posted on 11/26/2003 4:08:50 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.

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

34 posted on 11/26/2003 4:11:59 PM PST by clamper1797 (Conservative by nature ... Republican in Spirit ... Patriot by Heart ... and Anti Liberal BY GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the institution of marriage from courts that go beyond their constitutional mandates.

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.

35 posted on 11/26/2003 4:12:28 PM PST by Michael.SF. ("I always make it a point to eat what I kill." - John Kerry, Vietnam vet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
The whole problem with your homosexual/Jews analogy is this...

Jews did nothing to rip the fabric of society and batter the foundations on which society is based. THEY were the victims, selected for extermination based solely on one mans hatred.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, wish to change a major keystone of civilization, merely to forward their own sexual 'preference'.

The two are not comparable.

Think about it!
36 posted on 11/26/2003 4:15:00 PM PST by ex 98C MI Dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
"they are wasting air on pointless crap like this."

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.

37 posted on 11/26/2003 4:20:28 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
"Think about it."

God thought about it.
His decision is good enough for me.

38 posted on 11/26/2003 4:25:23 PM PST by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
"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"

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.

39 posted on 11/26/2003 4:25:25 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
i We're fighting two battles: the first against terrorism; the second, the attack on our culture

That Sir is EXACTLY right ... and in my opinion ... it is the later war which is the more dangerous to our Republic

40 posted on 11/26/2003 4:27:23 PM PST by clamper1797 (Conservative by nature ... Republican in Spirit ... Patriot by Heart ... and Anti Liberal BY GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
"Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews."

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.

Happy sailing.

41 posted on 11/26/2003 4:28:12 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Ok, I thought about it and disagree. We are not attacking the homos -- the homos are attacking the fabric of our society which marriage is core; however thus time they have overstepped bigtime.
42 posted on 11/26/2003 4:29:58 PM PST by oneoftheothers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
My mistake.
43 posted on 11/26/2003 4:36:28 PM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel; All
Don't you EVER, EVER dare to compare your "imagined" pain of discrimination to real discrimination that really happened in Hilter's Germany.

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.

44 posted on 11/26/2003 4:39:36 PM PST by thinktwice (America is truly blessed ... with George W. Bush as President..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals.

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.

45 posted on 11/26/2003 4:46:22 PM PST by MrsEmmaPeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
"It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals"

No, actually it's Christians responding to attacks by Queer nation on our value systems. Deal with it.

The battle is joined.

46 posted on 11/26/2003 4:46:37 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
107 co sponsors in the house.

None of whcih come from the infamous North East.



NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT COSPONSORS

H.J.RES.56
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] (introduced 5/21/2003)      Cosponsors: 107
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
COSPONSORS(107), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

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]

47 posted on 11/26/2003 5:10:45 PM PST by thiscouldbemoreconfusing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Marriage is no longer just about religion. It is about tradition. 800 years worth of tradition. Marriage has always been between man and woman. It is also known as matrimony.

As far as 'homophobia' is concerned, I do not fear them. I disagree with them. There is a huge difference.

If gays want something like marriage, let them create it. Just don't call it marriage, or expect the rest of us to recognize it.
48 posted on 11/26/2003 5:30:24 PM PST by ex 98C MI Dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson