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

Skip to comments.

Sign this Marriage Amendment Petition Please (Gay Marrige)
one man one woman dot com (Jerry Falwell site) ^ | 11-18-03 | BSunday

Posted on 11/18/2003 12:28:19 PM PST by BSunday

Please click on this link and sign the petition for the constitutional amendment:

Fight the Heterophobics


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: child; father; fma; gay; glsen; heterophobic; homosexual; marriageamendment; mother; pervert; recruiting; school; soddomy; sodomite
Freegards BSunday
1 posted on 11/18/2003 12:28:20 PM PST by BSunday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: No King but Jesus
PING

Please can you help me get the word out on this also?

2 posted on 11/18/2003 12:41:05 PM PST by BSunday (I'm not the bad guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
Done.
3 posted on 11/18/2003 12:44:59 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: BSunday
Yeah, that'll help.
5 posted on 11/18/2003 12:56:08 PM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
Signed and listed e-mails to statewide homeschool groups.
6 posted on 11/18/2003 1:06:22 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday

Chairman Sensenbrenner's Photo

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

107th Congress Flag

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

Subcommittee Members

 

Subcommittee on the Constitution

Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman

362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney  
Mr. Forbes  

 


7 posted on 11/18/2003 1:11:54 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
This is a federal power grab. We should be pushing for the rights of states to decide this for themselves, per amendment 10.
8 posted on 11/18/2003 9:07:17 PM PST by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery
It's not a federal power grab; an amendment is an explicit part of the Constitution that allows for changes on major issues. It isn't strictly a federal thing, because a large portion of the state legislatures have to approve an amendment, that's why there have been so few.
9 posted on 11/18/2003 9:52:21 PM PST by houndofzeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: houndofzeus
Just because the amendment process is Constitutionally valid, doesn't mean it's not a federal power grab. I consider other amendments federal power grabs as well. Community standards is the best way to deal with these issues.
10 posted on 11/18/2003 9:58:33 PM PST by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ellery
We should be pushing for the rights of states to decide this for themselves, per amendment 10.

PING

11 posted on 11/19/2003 6:30:16 AM PST by Don Corleone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
I signed it(without phone number)...more info than I would normally submit. The cause justifies it, though.
12 posted on 11/19/2003 9:50:36 AM PST by international american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
Signed and bump!
13 posted on 11/19/2003 10:55:05 AM PST by Nowhere Man ("Laws are the spider webs through which the big bugs fly past and the little ones get caught.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: international american
*I signed it(without phone number)...more info than I would normally submit. The cause justifies it, though.*

Ditto!

14 posted on 11/19/2003 11:24:57 AM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
DONE

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) as a proposed constitutional amendment, which will remove the definition of marriage from the reach of all legislatures and courts permanently.

This amendment simply states:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between 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"

We are in the process of gathering ONE MILLION NAMES on a petition that we will submit to Congress and the President in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and a majority vote of three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states) with no governors' signatures required.

This petition will be sent to the President, your U.S. Congressman and your two U.S. Senators. The petition states:

I am greatly concerned over recent Canadian and American liberal court rulings in favor of homosexual "marriage", the legalization of sodomy, and other actions damaging the traditional family.

As a voting taxpayer, I fully support Rep. Marilyn Musgraves's proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) and urge your unwavering support for this legislation.


15 posted on 11/19/2003 6:29:11 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK ("Veritas vos Liberabit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
I understand the sentiment, but this is an attack on federalism. As they say, bad facts make bad law, and the principles underlying this amendment will come back to haunt. I can just see a federal amendment some day telling the states that they cannot construe their own state constitutions to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
16 posted on 11/19/2003 6:34:12 PM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
You're probably right. I need to rethink the whole issue of state vs. federal, and whether the federal government has a "compelling interest" in the matter.
17 posted on 11/20/2003 5:43:10 AM PST by BSunday (I'm not the bad guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
I'm going to have to pass on this one. I can't support what I don't feel is the proper way to deal with this issue.
18 posted on 11/20/2003 5:47:49 AM PST by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Sir, would you please remove my thread ? Given further consideration, I'm not sure that I believe this is in the purview of the federal government.
19 posted on 11/20/2003 5:51:54 AM PST by BSunday (I'm not the bad guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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