Is this ok then?
Posted on 07/17/2006 12:06:51 PM PDT by DBeers
Washington D.C. (AHN) - House Republicans are going ahead to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The vote is scheduled for Tuesday as part of a week in which House GOP leaders plan to focus on what they call their "American values agenda."
In one of his weekly radio addresses, President Bush said changing the Constitution is necessary because "activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years.
Last month, the Senate was short of the 11 of the 60 votes needed to advance the proposal to a yes-or-no decision.
Although the vote was close, opponents of same-sex marriage considered it a success.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council told the Associated Press, "The more this issue is discussed, the more people understand the threat" (posed by activist courts).
Perkins said the votes in Congress enable the majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage "to look and see if the people in Washington represent them and stand on the same side."
Massachusetts is currently the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry, but the state's high court ruled this month that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in future can be put on the ballot.
- Washington: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in March 2005 in a case in which 19 couples seek to overturn the state's Defense of Marriage Act. It's unclear when the court might rule.
- Massachusetts: On on November 18th, 2003, in a 4/3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed homosexual "marriage" upon the citizens of Massachusetts. Conservative citizens have responded to the activist judiciary with a Constitutional Amendment referendum effort now at the stage of requiring approval by 25% of the legislature, or 50 members, in two successive sessions before it goes to the ballot in 2008. A simple majority of citizens voting in support of the referendum will make it an amendment to the state constitution and end the imposed homosexual "marriage" social experiment into the realm of delusion.
- New Jersey: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Feb. 15; it's unclear when the court might rule.
- New York: On July 6, 2006 the state Court of Appeals, held the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."
- Georgia: The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously on July 6, 2006 that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures.
- California: A state court last year ruled that barring same-sex marriage is against the state Constitution. An appeals court heard the case on July 10, 2006. The three-judge panel has 90 days to rule. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
- Nebraska: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 14, 2006 reversed an U.S. District ruling by Judge Bataillon, who ruled last year that a marriage amendment was too broad and deprived homosexuals of participation in the political process. In ruling, The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
- Maryland: A judge on January 20 struck down a 1973 state ban on same-sex marriages. The state has appealed the ruling.
- Connecticut: On July 12, 2006, Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins ruled against eight same-sex couples who filed suit against the state in August 2004 after being denied marriage licenses. The eight Connecticut couples have said they intend to appeal the Superior Court ruling.
- Iowa: A trial in a gay marriage lawsuit is scheduled before a state judge for Oct. 23, 2006.
Please ping me with any updates and or corrections to this.
Thanks!
Hey now, that ain't yer job.
And voting for Gay Marriage would be pandering to the Victory Fund.
http://victoryfund.org
'Brought to you by, David Mixner'
What would the FMA do?
The Amendment ONLY bans activist judges...
A legitimate understanding of the Amendment hinges principally on one word, "construe", which one should assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any assessment suggesting a banning when the freedom of the legislature is maintained.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
The Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe any novel marital constructs e.g. two men, three women, a goat and a lounge singer, etcetera and leaves open the question(s) to be legislatively addressed ONLY at both federal and state levels...
The hyperbole and propaganda coming from the enraged leftists opposed to this amendment is frenzied and tin foil hatted -no doubt, WHEN it passes, be it sooner or later, leftist heads will explode scattering tin foil everywhere authentic freedom reins over social engineering leftists.
Amen, brother. The Religious Right got the candidate of their dreams, and the man turned out to be a complete moron.
If you wish to pander to the homosexual left THEN do it on DU.
Vermont's lessons on gay marriage
By Howard Dean | May 17, 2004
"IN THE SPRING of 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union not only to recognize same-sex partnerships, but to make sure that every single right outlined in the Vermont Constitution and Vermont laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual Vermonters. Every right but one. Gay and lesbian Vermonters do not have the right to call their unions marriage." (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/17/vermonts_lessons_on_gay_marriage/)
The charade of using the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" should not prevent us from recognizing Vermont for their step down the slippery slope.
Is this ok then?
-I am sure the Massachusetts Supreme Court would find it okay.
Nobody is going to amend our Constitution for frivolous reasons arising from the self-serving agendas of mullahs, imams, priests, preachers.
Hey leftist. You objectively attempt to conflate "reason" with "person" and then attempt to disparage any "reason" as frivolous simply because a religious person may support it.
Not funding a socialist village where homosexual sex couplings get a societal handout for contributing nothing to society -deal with that reason leftist...
BTTT.
Thank you for your 2 cents DBeers, I know what when you come on and insult me, I must be on the right track. When people like me, thomaswest and LunaticFringe suggest that the time of the President and Congress are not best spent pursuing a dead Marriage Amendment, you call us leftists and imply we are more at home at DU rather than attempt a coherent argument. You may find trivial hot button issues to be the most important thing in the world, but on the most important issues, border security and balancing the budget, Bush has been an abysmal failure.
Very clumsy non-sequitur. Addresses nothing that I posted, and is wrong besides.
Nobody is going to amend our Constitution for frivolous reasons arising from the self-serving agendas of mullahs, imams, priests, preachers.
"House Republicans To Vote On Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"
Should read "House Republicans To Vote On Amendment TO PROTECT Marriage" (real marriage)
I do believe you have it! But then, what else does the House have to do other than 13 appropriations bill, Summer recess, immigration reform, summer recess, energy, summer recess, etc. Well, they always have time to pander for a few votes.
We have another winner here! Some people get it.
This is the only issue DBeers cares about. Search his posts. There is nothing more important than keeping the gays in the closet.
Why, is "real marriage" in danger somewhere? I know mine isn't.
DINGDINGDING!!! Winner.
"FREEDOM for all white male conservative protestant Christian heteros!!"
Another Republican trick to distract conservative voters from the Republican Party's support for amnesty and open borders.
HEADS UP,
This is on CSPAN Now.
Rep. Baldwin (D) from Wisconsin is literally spouting every homosexual talking point LIE about the federal marriage amendment.
She is ignoring the discrimination against polygamists.
She is admitting the FMA will shut down the debate.
http://www.c-span.org
live streaming.
Democrats are obsessed with this being about homosexuals.
So James Moran supports polygamists because he thinks the Marriage Amendment has the word "sodomite" or "homosexual" in it.
Democrats are DEAD wrong on the law and legal issues.
ONE judge can overide any law.
Democrat Cleaver is just getting it wrong jumping through hoops to say the FMA tells churchs to outlaw homosexual marriage.
ATTENTION DEMOCRATS: This is about law, there is no "religion" test in marriage. ALL marriages under the law are "civil marriages".
The man is a nut job!
Lincoln Davis is going into fix a whole bunch of homosexual talking points.
Demcorcats are just plain stupid. It seems the democrats have played all the hate mongering. He is talking the absurdity of outlawing divorce, and outlawing adultery.
Davis is obviously pandering. He is confused, the FMA has NOTHING to do with religion.
HELLO DAVIS, the reason for the vote is for you to stand up and SHOW CONCLUSIVLY you stand proudly with the democrat party that the democrat party stands for one person play with the genitals of a member of the sames sex.
This is a light on the cockroach democrats.
Democrats ignoring the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
This vote is great because it exposes all the democrats in outside of barney frank who are closet homosexual supporters.
motion passed on voice vote.
Not all members present. Democrats in hiding...
Ping me next time you attempt to disparage me. Your passive pro-homosexual postings are transparently obvious as usual.
Your pro-homosexual pandering grows tiresome...
When you post something substantive and not a bigoted generalization attemting to disparage conservatives then ping me. Meanwhile -as long as you serve the leftists causes on topics I see your posting you will be opposed...
Bravo Sierra! These guys have a lot of nerve to try selling this nonsense after their miserable failures at shoring up real American values of limited government, protecting the borders, etc.
One espousing leftist ideology or three leftist ideology are still espousing leftist ideology. Numbers do not make that which is severely flawed any less severely flawed...
I am not disparaging you. I speak the truth. Searching your posts results in nothing but pages and pages of gay-bashing. The evidence indicates it is the only issue that concerns you. You have turned FR into your own little Westboro Baptist Church.
Do not be ashamed of your homophobia, DBeers. It's who you are. I've accepted it, why can't you?
LOL!
Would that charge classify as (shudder) stalking?
I'm kind of surprised to see you back on this thread. You got your butt handed to you here...
Do not be ashamed of your homophobia, DBeers. It's who you are. I've accepted it, why can't you?
I suggest you seek another safer forum -where such leftist personal attacks on others may pass unnoticed and would probably be welcomed -say DU?
LOL -you seem to be more wishful than rational in your observation...
Right. Though you tried your usual threats and name calling, you didn't scare too many conservatives away this time, like you usually do. I'd say, at the risk of Churchill turning over in his grave, This thread was not your finest hour...
I will let you know if ever my finest hours are measured by your futile minutes...
Oh I won't take credit for the others here who handed your butt to you. it wasn't my futile minutes which, as usual, were on the winning side of the issue. So you may want to try and put this thread behind you. Not sure why the old gang didn't come to your rescue like they usually do. It's not a pretty sight when they leave you out there to fend for yourself.
LOL - I am still here butt intact despite your wishful thinking...
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.