List of CO-Sponsors GROWING - Call YOUR Congressman.

H.J. Res 56 ^ | TODAY | David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

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: 39 Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(39), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2] Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3] Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8] Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1] Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26] Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12] Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7] Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1] Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4] Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4] Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5] Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4] Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8] Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2] Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52] Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5] Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3] Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3] Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6] Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5] Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2] Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1] Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9] Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6] Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16] Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3] Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17] 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 Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2]

[davidosborne]

pass it on.. SUPPORT HJ RES 56

[davidosborne]

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
END

[Support Free Republic]

Book her, Dano.
>	Support the finest site on the web. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[davidosborne]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00056:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
END

[Support Free Republic]

Book her, Dano.
>	Support the finest site on the web. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[davidosborne]

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[azhenfud]

BUMP for the Family!

[happygrl]

Your pie chart demonstrates the effectiveness of the homosexual agenda in this country.

That 38% of the public would not understand the simple notion of marriage is telling.

That 26% would disagree that marriage is between a man and a woman is the evidence of the success of the propaganda of the left, primarily through television.

[I got the rope]

BTTT!

[Canadian Outrage]

The tail wagging the dog huh? Just like here. The homosexuals are an agressive, vocal and determined MINORITY. How is it they can get away with any of this? Fact is, this MINORITY has been getting away with their bribery right under the MAJORITY of peoples noses. Time to stand up and be counted. Let's not kid ourselves, accepting their "matrimonial status" is only the FIRST step in their agenda.

[davidosborne]

CLICK HERE... to sign petition to SUPPORT HJ RES 56

[davidosborne]

CLICK HERE... to sign petition to SUPPORT HJ RES 56

[TheAngryClam]

what's the final step?

[Canadian Outrage]

I believe the final step will likely result in unfettered, unbridled hedonism which the Courts by this step have opened the door to. It may not be out of the question, that maurading (sp?) gangs of homosexuals will snatch and molest children from your local parks and recreation centres - sodomy laws now as we know, no longer exist. Homosexuals will apply for employment working with children in droves and this little matter on their resumes will not disqualify them from those positions. Truly it is the youngsters these people want their hands on. This may sound harsh, but if you have ever read anything by David Wilkerson, you will see that he prophesied all these things including how powerful this lobby has become. Besides, the bottom line is to completely re-define family and marriage.

[happygrl]

In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

There is no King Jesus for many; thus, they do what is right in their own eyes.

[Canadian Outrage]

AMEN happygrl!!

[davidosborne]

we are in for an UPHILL battle on this HJ Res 56.. I am committed to getting the word out and trying to get this passed and settle this troubling moral question.. I NEVER thought I would be advocating a U.S. Constitutional Ammendment, and would normally be opposed to doing so.. I have made an exception in this case becuase the Supreme Court failed in it's duty to uphold the "moral intent" of the Constitution itself.. so now "WE THE PEOPLE" must make it very clear to the Supreme Court that we still demand that the foundation of our Nation's SUPREME LAW is grounded in MORALITY...

David C. Osborne

[Republican Wildcat]

My Rep. is already on there (Ron Lewis).