Federal Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/26/03 | Susan Jones

[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.

[Old Sarge]

YES!

[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.

[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.

[sirchtruth]

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!

[Leatherneck_MT]

""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.

[firewalk]

bttt

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

[Mo1]

WOW .. that was fast .. wasn't sure they would try it

[Mo1]

Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid,

You wanna bet .. just watch them

[Indy Pendance]

Ann Coulter had a great quote, paraphrasing, "the dems are going the way of the whig party". Let them cannibalize themselves.

[Lunatic Fringe]

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.

[deadeye2]

If you think that was fast,you've never seen a congressional pay raise go through.

[steveegg]

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

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[Agitate]

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

Congress.org makes it easy:

[I_love_weather]

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

[jwalsh07]

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.

[thinktwice]

You're attacking me, not my statement.

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