Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4]
Posted on 02/19/2004 1:44:46 PM PST by davidosborne
Edited on 02/19/2004 2:07:07 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
H.J.RES.56 Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor:
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4]
(Introduced 5/21/2003)
Cosponsors: 112
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(112), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order)
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [D-TX-4]
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [D-NC-7]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [D-MN-7]
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [R- VA-1]
Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [R- LA-1]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [R- PA-16]
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [R- MD-6]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [R- VA-5]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [R- SC-2]
Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [R- FL-15]
Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [R- IN-6]
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- OK-5]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- NC-3]
Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- KS-2]
Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-3]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- SC-4]
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [R- MO-2]
Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-26]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [R- GA-9]
Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [R- IA-5]
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [R- GA-6]
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [R- IN-3]
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [R- MN-6]
Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [R- FL-1]
Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [R- KY-2]
Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [R- NC-8]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [R- SC-3]
Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-12]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-8]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [R- AL-3]
Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [R- TN-3]
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [D-TX-17]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [R- MI-2]
Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [R- TX-8]
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [R- KY-1]
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-52]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-4]
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [R- SC-1]
Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [R- VA-7]
Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [D-TN-4]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-3]
Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-1]
Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [D-MS-4]
Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [R- CA-2]
Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [R- OK-1]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [R- NJ-5]
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [R- LA-3]
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [R- WY]
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-4]
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [R- NJ-4]
Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-2]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-11]
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-5]
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [R- FL-6]
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-50]
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [R- NM-2]
Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [R- IL-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [R- TX-6]
Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [R- OH-8]
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [R- MN-1]
Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [R- PA-5]
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [R- KS-4]
Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-2]
Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-31]
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [R- MO-8]
Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [R- IN-2]
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [R- CA-46]
Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [R- IL-8]
Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [R- PA-9]
Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-32]
Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [R- CO-7]
Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-10]
Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-9]
Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [R- PA-15]
Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [R-TX-7]
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [R-IL-16]
Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-NE-3]
Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-FL-24]
Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [D-KY-4]
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [R-PA-4]
Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [R-NC-6]
Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [R-CA-44]
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [R-OH-3]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [R-GA-1]
Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [R-AR-3]
Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [R-VA-6]
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [D-LA-5]
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [R-CO-6]
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [R-AL-6]
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [R-MI-11]
Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [R-KY-5]
Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [R-AZ-6]
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [R-CA-42]
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [R-AL-4]
Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [R-FL-8]
Rep Everett, Terry - 11/20/2003 [R-AL-2]
Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 11/20/2003 [R-TX-19]
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 11/20/2003 [R-LA-6]
Rep Shadegg, John B. - 11/20/2003 [R-AZ-3]
Rep Janklow, William J. - 11/20/2003 [R-SD]
Rep Burton, Dan - 11/20/2003 [R-IN-5]
Rep Deal, Nathan - 11/20/2003 [R-GA-10]
Rep Smith, Lamar - 11/21/2003 [R-TX-21]
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 11/21/2003 [R-FL-5]
Rep Cannon, Chris - 11/21/2003 [R-UT-3]
Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 11/21/2003 [R-MO-9]
Rep Blunt, Roy - 1/23/2004 [R-MO-7]
Rep Cole, Tom - 2/10/2004 [R-OK-4]
Rep Ferguson, Mike - 2/10/2004 [R-NJ-7]
Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 2/10/2004 [R-VA-10]
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 2/10/2004 [R-TN-2]
**** ACTION ALERT *****
**** If your Congresscritter is listed please call to THANK them..... if they are not please call/fax/write/email and ask them to please co-sponsor this bill...
Bush supports traditional marriage definition in issuing Marriage Protection proclamation
Link to - Bill Status HJR 56 (HOUSE VERSION)
S.J.RES.26 Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. Sponsor: Sen Allard, A. Wayne [R-CO]
(introduced 11/25/2003) Cosponsors: 7 Latest Major Action: 11/25/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
COSPONSORS(7), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Sen Brownback, Sam - 11/25/2003 [R-KS] Sen Bunning, Jim - 11/25/2003 [R-KY] Sen Inhofe, Jim - 11/25/2003 [R-OK] Sen Miller, Zell - 2/9/2004 [D-GA] Sen Santorum, Rick - 2/12/2004 [R-PA] Sen Sessions, Jeff - 11/25/2003 [R-AL] Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 12/9/2003 [R-AL]
NEW 2/19/2004…..Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source
I'm confused...
NO SNICKERING!!
MY RESPONSE TO THOSE FREEPERS WHO OPPOSE HJR 56...
First and foremost this is NOT petty... it is critical in this day and age that we RE-AFFIRM our MORAL foundation. I AGREE with those opponents who are concerned that the U.S. Constitution should not have to be this SPECIFIC, ....HOWEVER, our JUSTICE system has failed us miserably... by equating a union of two people of the same sex to MARIAGE....
this is a HUGE step in destroying the MORAL foundation of our laws.
I believe that by NOT passing this ammendment the effect will be exactly what some opponenets fear will occur if we DO pass it......
IMHO, it will encourage leftists to try to put their own crap into our laws using the judiciary, and taking advantage of its failure to ensure decisions are grounded in MORALITY........
This Ammendment will send the message LOUD AND CLEAR to our JUDICIARY that we WANT them to make decisions that are grounded in MORALITY and if they don't know what that is then WE THE PEOPLE will have to explain it to them in the CONSTITUTION!!!
66 posted on 07/27/2003 10:40:06 AM EDT by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
I concur, however..........
Why not pass an act the legislates HJR 56 into US code via the exceptions clause USC Art 3/ Sec 2/ Clause 2} @ the same time?
This would effectively supersede:
State Law
Federal Law
Standing Judicial Opinions NOW
and whilst it was processed thought the states {a matter of years} the The Federal Courts Could NOT Touch It!
While technically Ralph may still be a "D" as far as Congress is concerned, he is running as an "R" this year.
Hell, I'd be pleased if they'd just make decisions grounded in the Constitution. I'm not holding my breath though.
Don't give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage and the home, and let's have Congress use Article III section 2 of the Contstitution.
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all." (quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]
| 1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1). |
| 1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means: - not being under constraint; - not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law. |
I understand your concern about ammending the constitution... however THIS issue has gotten so out of control..... The ammendment PROCESS as you well know takes a LONG time.... and sadly is unlikely to be ratified... as the AMMENDMENT PROCESS goes forward and enough supporters come forward there would be sufficient pressure on congress to consider the alternative that you and others have suggested...... right now they are simply NOT feeling the pressure because many well intended conservatives are OPPOSING moving forward with the Ammendement PROCESS...... thus creating the ILLUSSION that we are in the minority on this issue...
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.