Skip to comments.
Federal Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 11/26/03
| Susan Jones
Posted on 11/26/2003 2:47:02 PM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Three Republicans introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday. The proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment along with co-sponsors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
The Alliance For Marriage, the group that drafted the proposed amendment, said its introduction in the Senate confirms that momentum is growing for a constitutional defense of marriage - especially in light of the recent court ruling in Massachusetts that cleared the way for same-sex couples to legally marry.
"Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage.
He noted that a Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in the House in May now has 100 co-sponsors.
But homosexual advocacy groups said they are outraged, and they accused Republicans of grossly misusing the U.S. Constitution.
"The U.S. Constitution is no place to play election-year politics, particularly when our nation is facing other critical issues such as an uncertain economy, threats to our homeland, the safety of our troops in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch in a press release.
The Constitution should only be used to expand individual rights, not to single out a group of Americans for discrimination, Birch added.
But supporters of traditional marriage say a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the institution of marriage from courts that go beyond their constitutional mandates.
The Family Research Council is urging conservatives to contact their senators during the holiday recess to express support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; catholiclist; constitution; gay; gayagenda; gaymarriage; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; marriage; marriageamendment; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-246 next last
1
posted on
11/26/2003 2:47:02 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
YES!
2
posted on
11/26/2003 2:47:52 PM PST
by
Old Sarge
(Serving YOU... on Operation Noble Eagle!)
To: kattracks
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it. Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid.
To: Old Sarge
There are no Democratic co-sponsors. I would be surprised if it gets a two thirds vote (assuming it survives the inevitable filibuster) in the Senate.
4
posted on
11/26/2003 2:52:25 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Batrachian
Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid.The battle lines are being drawn and this is where the dems will meet their demise.
Watch the stupidity flow!
To: kattracks
""The U.S. Constitution is no place to play election-year politics, particularly when our nation is facing other critical issues such as an uncertain economy, threats to our homeland, the safety of our troops in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch in a press release."
Of which these peter puffers care nothing.
6
posted on
11/26/2003 2:56:31 PM PST
by
Leatherneck_MT
(Those who do not accept peaceful change make a violent bloody revolution inevitable.)
To: kattracks
bttt
7
posted on
11/26/2003 2:59:56 PM PST
by
firewalk
To: goldstategop
There are no Democratic co-sponsors. I would be surprised if it gets a two thirds vote (assuming it survives the inevitable filibuster) in the Senate.
Well, the amendment will take 2/3rds, so I don't know if a fillibuster fits in, unless the libs want to prevent a roll call vote on the matter, which they probably do.
To: kattracks
WOW .. that was fast .. wasn't sure they would try it
9
posted on
11/26/2003 3:05:44 PM PST
by
Mo1
To: Batrachian
Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid, You wanna bet .. just watch them
10
posted on
11/26/2003 3:06:46 PM PST
by
Mo1
To: Mo1
Ann Coulter had a great quote, paraphrasing, "the dems are going the way of the whig party". Let them cannibalize themselves.
To: kattracks
OK, it will never happen.
Constitutional amendments are next to impossible to pass, and I suspect strong opposition to this will make cowards of most state legislatures.
12
posted on
11/26/2003 3:15:52 PM PST
by
Lunatic Fringe
(I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman.)
To: Mo1
If you think that was fast,you've never seen a congressional pay raise go through.
13
posted on
11/26/2003 3:24:38 PM PST
by
deadeye2
To: Batrachian
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it. Votes required to invoke cloture - 60
Votes required to pass a Constitutional amendment - 67
14
posted on
11/26/2003 3:33:31 PM PST
by
steveegg
(Property tax freeze? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, RECALL - countdown is now 35 days (late update))
To: Batrachian
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it. Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid. Then why introduce it this year? It would be better to introduce it next year and vote on it just prior to the 2004 DemocRAT national convention.
15
posted on
11/26/2003 3:34:56 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
Please write your congressman about this if you haven't already!
Congress.org makes it easy:
17
posted on
11/26/2003 3:38:57 PM PST
by
Agitate
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ - jihadwatch.org - protestwarrior.com - congress.org)
To: thinktwice
Quote "This is a misuse of Constitutional power, and evidence of a Constitution-destroying mindset within those supporting the amendment.
The objectives within the U.S. Constitution are contained in the words ...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
... and interfering with natural human sexuality is not one of them.
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.
Think about it.
"
DITTO THAT
To: thinktwice
Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews.Think about it.
I thought it about and here's what I came up with. You're either a liar or a lunatic.
19
posted on
11/26/2003 3:43:42 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
You're attacking me, not my statement.
Give reasons for your position and you'll look more like a thinking being.
20
posted on
11/26/2003 3:47:35 PM PST
by
thinktwice
(America is truly blessed ... with George W. Bush as President..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-246 next last
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