Federal Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/26/03 | Susan Jones

[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.

[Eastbound]

"Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews."

What a bunch of crap! Sorry, no sale here. Jews are a race by birth. Homosexuality is a life-style by choice. Pedal that garbage elsewhere. The issue is piracy. Hands off the ship of 'marriage.' It is well-guarded. Sail your own ship if you think it is sea-worthy. Fly your own UNION if you are proud of it, and transport your own 'cargo' by another means. Thank you very much.

Happy sailing.

[oneoftheothers]

Ok, I thought about it and disagree. We are not attacking the homos -- the homos are attacking the fabric of our society which marriage is core; however thus time they have overstepped bigtime.

[Batrachian]

My mistake.

[thinktwice]

Don't you EVER, EVER dare to compare your "imagined" pain of discrimination to real discrimination that really happened in Hilter's Germany.

It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals.

Are you against civil marriages, or are you just used to them to the point where you don't think about them?

The term that comes to mind here is homophobia.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals.

You asserted that "Homosexuals are being treated -- by Christians -- just as Hitler treated Jews." That is a LIE Show me the concentration camps. Show me evidence of mass extermination of homosexuals - here - in the USA.

Until you're willing to amend and adjust that irrational and hysterical outburst, there is no point trying to debate anything with me.

I cannot debate with someone who is not grounded in reality.

[truthandjustice1]

"It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals"

No, actually it's Christians responding to attacks by Queer nation on our value systems. Deal with it.

The battle is joined.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

107 co sponsors in the house.

None of whcih come from the infamous North East.

---

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT COSPONSORS

---

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: 107
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

---

COSPONSORS(107), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [AL-4]	Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2]
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [LA-5]	Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [AL-6]
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 11/20/2003 [LA-6]	Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [NC-10]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3]	Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [TX-6]	Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [CO-7]
Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [OH-8]	Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [AR-3]
Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]	Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1]
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 11/21/2003 [FL-5]	Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26]
Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12]	Rep Burton, Dan - 11/20/2003 [IN-5]
Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [CA-44]	Rep Cannon, Chris - 11/21/2003 [UT-3]
Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7]	Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [TX-31]
Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [IN-2]	Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8]	Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [IL-8]
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [WY]	Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [TX-7]
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [CA-50]	Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [TN-4]	Rep Deal, Nathan - 11/20/2003 [GA-10]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4]	Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4]
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [MO-8]	Rep Everett, Terry - 11/20/2003 [AL-2]
Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [FL-24]	Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [AZ-6]
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [VA-4]	Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [AZ-2]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [NJ-5]	Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5]	Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [VA-6]
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [MN-1]	Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4]
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [PA-4]	Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8]
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [AZ-5]	Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [CA-2]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2]	Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 11/21/2003 [MO-9]
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52]	Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [IL-6]
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6]	Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5]
Rep Janklow, William J. - 11/20/2003 [SD]	Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3]	Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [FL-8]
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6]	Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [GA-1]	Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2]
Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [KY-4]	Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [IL-16]
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [MI-11]	Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7]
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [CA-42]	Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [NC-9]	Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 11/20/2003 [TX-19]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9]	Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [NE-3]
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [NM-2]	Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7]	Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [PA-5]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [MS-3]	Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [CA-11]	Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [KY-5]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3]	Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [CA-46]
Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2]	Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [VA-2]
Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [TX-32]	Rep Shadegg, John B. - 11/20/2003 [AZ-3]
Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [PA-9]	Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [NJ-4]
Rep Smith, Lamar - 11/21/2003 [TX-21]	Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3]
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [FL-6]	Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]
Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [OK-1]	Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [CO-6]
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [LA-3]	Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [MS-4]
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [KS-4]	Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [PA-15]
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [OH-3]	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 Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [MS-1]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2]

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Marriage is no longer just about religion. It is about tradition. 800 years worth of tradition. Marriage has always been between man and woman. It is also known as matrimony.

As far as 'homophobia' is concerned, I do not fear them. I disagree with them. There is a huge difference.

If gays want something like marriage, let them create it. Just don't call it marriage, or expect the rest of us to recognize it.

[Michael.SF.]

But the fact is, only by ammending the constitution can we put the judicial system in its place.

That being the case, I would then support this amendment:

The power of the Judiciary shall be limited to the interpretation of legally enacted laws, amendments and propositions only.

I know, it is not in 'legaleeze', since I am not a lawyer, but I think you know what I intend by the above.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Where does the word "lifetime" fit into that definition? Oh, I guess this is the defense of divorce amendment.

[honeygrl]

I agree that this is a misuse of constitutional power.

I think the analogy you used comparing their treatment to that of the Jews by Hitler was too strong though.

This is something best left up to the states, even if some states don't do things the way some want them to. I don't want the Feds getting more power than they already have.

[Iron-sight Sniper]

"The Constitution should only be used to expand individual rights, not to single out a group of Americans for discrimination, Birch added"

Is that why gays are so anti- second amendment?

[woodyinscc]

I thought about it.!

Comparing this to the Holocaust is abhorrently wrong. Homosexuals, after the Texas decision are as free as jay birds to do what they do. No one tells them where they can or cannot work, no one tells them where the can or cannot live, and the last time I looked, there were no lines of them waiting for a ride in a boxcar! I guess I am attacking you, but your thought process is flawed.

[knak]

Christians are being told they can't wear crosses to work

I hadn't seen that one yet. Outrageous. Do you happen to have a link to a story on it?

[knak]

Don't athiests get married?

[Eastbound]

"The term that comes to mind here is homophobia."

As opposed to 'HETEROPHOBIA.'

[Agitate]

Here's part of the story and a link to the rest. I'm not sure but I think she won the case.

Apr 24, 2003 10:16 am US/Eastern

Glen Campbell, PA (AP) A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.

"I got suspended April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in," said Brenda Nichol, 43, of Indiana County.

Full story at:

Teacher's Aide Suspended for Wearing Cross

[truthandjustice1]

Yes, I do. When the Republicans figure out that the activist judiciary is the real enemy, brought about by the dems that can't get elected, they'll have the real winnung issue. Sad though, they can't get the message out.