Petition of Support for the Federal Marriage Amendment

One man One woman ^ | February 19, 2004 | Unkn

[Kaslin]

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.

[Kaslin]

I was just listening to Sean Hannity on my way home from my dentist and he had Jerry Fallwel(sp) and Candy? Gingrich on. The theme was about the thousands of marriage licenses that have illegally been handed out to gays and lesbians in San Francisco. Jerry F mentioned the petition.

Please sign the petition and support the president

[stevio]

Bump.

[Iron Matron]

Right On!

Is the petition online?

We must also call for the removal/censure of activist/criminal, law-breaking judges and other city officials.

[nobody_knows]

Select the onemanonewoman link to go to the petition.

[Kaslin]

Yes, just click on the link

[Kaslin]

Thanks for the Bump

[Iron Matron]

In the words of Homer Simpson: DOH!

Thanks.

[jdege]

I could support it, if they'd dropped the first sentence.

I'm absolutely opposed to the courts imposing gay-marriage by judicial fiat. "Legislating from the bench" is abhorrent, and needs to be ended.

But I do not think it appropriate to forbid state legislatures from doing so, if their constituents want them to.

[onedoug]

I'd be more comfortable with the language, "One man and one woman".

[Stellar Dendrite]

did you hear that woman who was 'debating' falwell?

hannity and falwell kept bringing up the slippery slope argument (ie polygamy, etc) and she couldnt argue with that one so she resorted to the usual liberal trickery ...saying that "these individuals love each other and have the RIGHT to get married"

well, i love my dog and my dog loves me. does that mean we should be married or have the right to be married?

[bobjam]

In that case we would have to include specific language that overrides the Full Faith and Credit Clause as regards to marriage and the legal incidents thereof.

[stopem]

Done!

Thanks for letting us know about these petitions. My family and I are signing every one of them.

[Kaslin]

What first sentence are you talking about? Please clarify

[Iron Matron]

But I do not think it appropriate to forbid state legislatures from doing so, if their constituents want them to.


Well, thats what they are doing in CA right? Listening to their degenerate constituancy!

Nope. Constitutional Ammendment may be necessary. Think about it ok?

[Kaslin]

Yes I did. I listened to it on my way to my dentist and only missed a few minutes, as my visit did not take long and then I listened again when I drove home. And your point is correct. Just because you love your pet does it mean you have to marry it?

[RightWhale]

Please sign the petition and support the president

Do not further amend the Constitution.

I turn down the opportunity to sign most petitions, and will decline to sign this one. I cannot support this and am dismayed that the President supports this Federal usurpation of states' rights and Federal invasion of the individual citizen's privacy.

[CheezyD]

Do not further amend the Constitution. I cannot support this and am dismayed that the President supports this Federal usurpation of states' rights and Federal invasion of the individual citizen's privacy.

I could not agree more.

[jdege]

I'm sorry, what's the question?

California voters overwhelmingly passed an initiative outlawing same-sex marriage, and if the courts over-ride it, I will be outraged.

Vermont voters, OTOH, elected a legislature that passed a civil union law, and then re-elected that legislature, and if the the courts don't uphold that, I will be outraged.

But right now, my outrage is focussed on Massachusetts, where the court has discovered some new right that requires that the law provide for same-sex marriage - and that means full marriage, not some sort of "civil union".

What I would do, if I was in the Massachusetts legislature, is to introduce a bill demoting the Massachusetts Supreme Court - making that court a subordinate court, and establishing that some other court that has not been packed by lunatic leftists will be the court of last resort. (Something like this happened in New York, once, which is why the Superior Court isn't "superior").

As for same-sex marriage - if there is a consensus in the state that there should be such a thing, there should be such a thing, as the expressed Will of the People. And if there is not, there should not.

And we shouldn't be having judges forcing these issues on a population that disagrees.

[davidosborne]

** ACTION ALERT ** SUPPORT S.J.RES.26 (7 Co-Sponsors) ** H.J.RES.56 (112 Co-Sponsors)

[Kaslin]

I believe you are reading what the Amendment states wrong. Unless you support marriage between gays and lesbians. the key is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman