Skip to comments.
House Joint Resolution 56 (marriage amendment)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:19:./temp/~c108m9AlW5:: ^
Posted on 11/18/2003 5:24:22 PM PST by conservativefromGa
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)
HJ 56 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 2003 Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
If you want an amendment to save the sanctity of marriage he it is.
To: conservativefromGa
If you want an amendment to save the sanctity of marriage he it is.opps I meant here it is
To: conservativefromGa
from www.house.gov the committee that has it right now.
To: longtermmemmory
Bump!
4
posted on
11/18/2003 5:30:24 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: conservativefromGa
Im not well versed in the intricasies of the consitution of points of law but it seems to me that what we need to address are theses judicial appointments for life. I Find it appalling that these judges cannot be stopped once they are in the door. The fact that they spit on what the people want is beyond the pale.
5
posted on
11/18/2003 5:31:43 PM PST
by
mylife
To: conservativefromGa
I think it needs a slight change.
`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man (who was born a man) and a woman (who was born 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.'.
To: mylife
of the consitution of or points of law
7
posted on
11/18/2003 5:33:32 PM PST
by
mylife
To: conservativefromGa
`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. It may be prudent to change the wording to 'one man and one woman' as you never know if down the road the definition of "a" may be called into question.
To: michigander
Also, we may need to define "one"; we have seen how even the meaning of "is" is now contested among some segments of our society.
9
posted on
11/18/2003 5:40:07 PM PST
by
what's up
To: what's up
Exactly! (Whatever that means.)
To: what's up
next they will change to the issue of "man" and that "man" (or woman) is a matter of declaration. Thus each couple will just declare publicly who is the man and who is the woman of the couple regardless of body.
To: what's up
For some strange reason, I read your post as "we have to define what 'man' means."
(Actually, that might be a good idea too.)
To: what's up
Do you think we can include pictures in the Constitution? Perhaps a drawing from an anatomy book?
13
posted on
11/18/2003 5:52:21 PM PST
by
July 4th
To: July 4th
the way the left uses the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, each marriage license will have to required anatomical photographs and a gender identifying DNA test.
To: conservativefromGa
What does this do to prohibit the 'Civil Union' as recognized in Vermont? I see nothing prohibiting it.
15
posted on
11/18/2003 6:11:48 PM PST
by
deport
To: deport
It prevents the full faith and credit issue. Of the states which have marriage as one man and one woman, none can be forced to accept a homosexual mass. marriage.
To: mylife
I agree, what good does it do to change the constitution when judges, appointed for life, just interpret it the way they want or totally ignore it for liberal purposes.
17
posted on
11/18/2003 7:03:05 PM PST
by
TheHound
To: TheHound
Yes, Its the iterpretation by yahoos that is a problem.
The vast majority of common folks in the US understand the spirit of the constitution without it becoming some Tome of legal mumbojumbo that can only be interpreted by elitist judges and lawyers!
Can someone enlighten me as to why judicial positions are so powerful?
18
posted on
11/18/2003 8:19:57 PM PST
by
mylife
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
