Skip to comments.Senate Floor Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment [Gordodn Smith, (R), OR]
Posted on 07/13/2004 7:53:15 AM PDT by Salvation
|Senate Floor Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
|We present here the remarks made on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Gordon H. Smith (R-OR) on July 9th during consideration of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Senator Gordons comments epitomize the kind of statesmanship desperately needed in this country at this time. At the bottom of this article we have listed the names of senators who must hear a loud and clear signal from the people they represent regarding this vital issue.
A Legal Framework That Protects Children
The Constitution Will Be Amended But By Whom?
There Is No More Important Issue
Does anyone have any idea how many votes we have so far?
Then give them a call, send them a fax, send them an email!
Calls and faxes are best!
I don't think we are up to the 67 required for an amendment.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Action Ping List.
Please ping your lists.
It's not exactly how I would have said it (not even close) but I'll take it. Thank you Senator!
Except for the token pandering to the gay/lesbo crowd, that is one of the greatest arguments I've heard yet for Constitutional definition of marriage.
Indeed, the family matters!
For your file.
** However imperfectly practiced by the American people, marriage still is a perfect ideal.**
Please contact your Senator to support the traditional ideal of marriage between an man and a woman.
My prayers going up now
Salvation, Thank you for the ping.
If you want on or off my prayer ping list, please let me know. All requests happily honored.
but ... the corollary is ...
what divorce does as a legal institution is to say to children here and those yet unborn that there is a legal framework in which they can lose protection and ...
If marriage must be defended -- constitutionally -- as a "legal institution," the meaning of "marriage" is lost.
This amendment needs all the help it can get.
divorce v. marriage will always be an issue.
This is about strengthening traditional marriage between and man and a woman.
I join in prayer for our country.
If you want to strengthen marriage, outlaw divorce.
The proposed amemdment involves the denial of rights to human beings.
Badray, is there a pa ping list for folks to swamp Specter with calls concerning this?
Senator Gordon mentions that the amendment was changed. How was it changed?
Better pray for a miracle. That's what will be required to pull this off.
Oh, and btw ..... I understand that these two are supposed to show up to vote AGAINST this bill tomorrow:
Kerry: "I want to kiss you, Johnny."
Edwards: "Go for it, Johnny."
Kerry-Edwards are the #1 and #4 most LIBERAL Senators.
They are THE MOST LIBERAL ticket ever!:
Senator John Kerry (D)
Democrat, Years of Service: 19
ACU Ratings for Senator Kerry: Year 2003 13 Year 2002 20 Lifetime 5
Senator John Edwards (D)
Democrat, Years of Service: 5
ACU Ratings for Senator Edwards: Year 2003 13 Year 2002 30 Lifetime 12
Thanks, Meek, we had forgotten those two!
Also here is a email I just received from Bill Frist:
On Friday, the Senate began debating a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I expect we'll have a vote on Wednesday morning.
Many Americans are surprised that we need to have this debate at all. Over and against 5,000 years of recorded human experience, activist judges in Massachusetts have overturned marriage as a covenant between husband and wife. And liberal and conservative legal scholars agree that unless the Congress acts to protect marriage, same-sex marriage will be extended nationwide.
Children do best with mothers and fathers. We're fooling ourselves if we think children will be held harmless by destroying marriage as the union of a husband and a wife. Marriage and family are the bedrock of society.
The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The question is only how it will be amended and by whom -- activist judges or the people.
My vote is with the people.
Post Office Box 158552
Nashville, TN 37215
Office: (615) 386-0045
Better stated ...
The proposed amendment is about the denial of rights to certain humans.
This speech should be given in primetime at the Republican National Convention!
Take my word for this, you will enjoy reading Senator Smiths specch on the FMA.
Actually, nobody is denied any right. Equal protection demands equal treatment and thats exactly what marriage does.
I got an email this morning stating that Lisa Murkowski was against the amendment.
I'll be back later to finish reading it. I'll try to keep an open mind, but he lost me when he talked about the Constitution being a living document.
Though there is a mechanism for amending the Constitution, that doesn't alter what it still says now. The 'living document' advocates want to change the meaning without going through the process of changing the document.
So far, I haven't seen a good argument for trivializing the Constitution with a marriage definition.
I ask you, What is the purpose of the Constitution? Is it a constraint on 'We the people' or on the power of government to dictate how ANY of us should live our lives?
I don't keep one and I don't know of any ping list for PA.
This may surprise you, but I DO NOT support this (or virtually any other amendment) to the Constitution. I agree that this issue is contentious. I believe that marriage means 1 man + 1 woman.
An amendment is the wrong solution for this situation. That document is a constraint on government, not on people. It's to tell the feds what they can do, not what we cannot do.
The problem is really rooted in the socialism that our government has promoted for the last 70 years. If you take away the socialized benefits (social security and health care paid for by someone else) you'll take away the momentum behind this rush to 'marry'.
Sadly, no politician has the guts to said so.
said s/b say
I agree with you ... the US Constitution has no more business in restricting sexual preferences than it did in criminalizing alcohol consumption.
Speaking of which. . .
At least at one time they thought it necessary to amend the Constitution to try to outlaw a behavior. Why doesn't the War on (some) Drugs require an amendment? Or at least the attempt to pretend to being a legitimate 'war' by taking 'official action'?
Way back when Sen. Gordon Smith was running for Oregon State Rep. he had ties with I can't think of his name but the anti gay activist Lon Mabel was it?
Anyway Chris worked to support Sen. Smith and personally met with him on a few occassions.
He is anti homosexual big time! He had to tone it down though in order to get the Senate seat.
Sentator Smith in his heart is very conservative and we know this for a fact, he told us so.
You tell 'em, Bill !
I finally got back to this and I remain unimpressed.
We have the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights and it's ignored as though it didn't exist. The 9th and 10th are always overlooked. The 4th and 5th are now doormats with which to wipe your feet. The 1st was just trashed by Bush, Congress and Scotus. What makes you think that this would be given any more regard? What makes you think that it will even get by SCOTUS?
This amendment would most definitely constrain homosexuals from the benefits of the word marriage. It tells homosexuals that they are not to be considered a part of the word and meaning~ marriage. It will constrain homosexual from furthering their liberal agenda.
I do not agree the problem is rooted in socialism. It is rooted in perverted man's behaviour and a desire to validate that behaviour by sabotaging the institution of marriage.
A quote from the governor:
"Before we let a few tell the many what it is going to be, I think we ought to debate it, carefully consider it, because while we debate issues of war and peace and recession and prosperity, some will say there are so many more important things to discuss than this. I say to you, there probably isn't a more important issue to discuss than the legal structure that binds men and women together for the creation and the rearing and nurturing of future generations of Americans. I make no apology for my vote for this process, for an amendment that defines marriage, because that is where it is headed, because the courts will compel it. And our legal structure gives American citizens an avenue to be included. So with my vote, I say include we the people.
"Now, I wish this cup would pass from us. I do not like this. I love people. I believe in tolerance. But I believe in democracy. Many will tell you we should leave this alone. But if you leave this alone, you will leave it to others. And if you leave it to others, they will dictate to the American people what it has to be. The only recourse then available when a Federal judge nullifies all state DOMA or constitutional provisions of the several states, finding an equal protection right to same-gender marriage the only recourse then is through the constitutional process laid out by the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights."
Interesting to find you in the same company with our liberal Senator Specter. Two things I had hoped men in this nation would stand up and protect: the unborn and the sanctity of marriage. How sad when men stand for some unreachable ideal and lamment over the past 70 years rather than stand strong and be a voice against the destruction of marriage. What will be worse for this nation then, an amendment that stops liberal elitist judges, commissioners, and liberal mayors or self-righteous anger towards our government in all their failures?
Federal Marriage Amendment Bump.
Praying that it will get passed. I think the Texas senators will vote for it. Maybe not Hutchenson.
I just read that Kerry and Edwards are not going to go to Washington DC to vote on the marriage amendment. Cowards.
I just read that Kerry and Edwards are not going to go to Washington DC to vote on the marriage amendment. Cowards.
Oh, really ? Well, not surprising, then. Jean Keri has been AWOL for almost 90% of the Senate votes this year.
And thanks for that info. :^)
I believe in the sanctity of life, but I won't blow up abortion clinics. Does that mean that I stand with the ACLU and abortion doctors? If so, please send me proof that you have bombed a clinic or two so that I can be sure of your stand.
Silly huh? No more silly than claiming that I stand with Arlen.
Doing what is right is just as important to me as achieving a desired result. I can't advocate bastardizing the Constitution to achieve my goals and criticize the left for doing the same. I won't push for laws to enforce my beliefs on others while objecting when the same thing is done to me.
I am opposing the amendment the same as Specter, but for entirely different reasons. That doesn't make us allies.
I am a pro life, pro 2nd Amendment, limited government, low tax Republican who doesn't belief that the 'separation of church and state' exists and doesn't believe that 2 men or 2 women can marry. But I also believe that winning on abortion and so called gay rights issues can only be done one on one, person to person, face to face and heart to heart. The bludgeon of the law or the Constitution will not end abortion and homosexuality anymore than the War on Drugs has stopped people from using drugs or Prohibition stopped people from drinking.
If an amendment was the cure, why are we suffering the destruction of our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments? I'll tell you why. We are allowing government to tell us what we can do (like this amendment does) instead of telling the Feds what they are allowed to do.
An amendment is the wrong solution. You can disagree and be disappointed, as you obviously are, but I do not apologize for standing on principle. Continued destruction of the Constitution will result in more chaos than gay 'marriage'.