Skip to comments.
Bush Backs Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage
NewsMax.com ^
| 2-24-04
| NewsMax Wires, AP
Posted on 02/24/2004 12:36:01 PM PST by Mich0127
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
I watched the live speech and I was thrilled to hear of the proposal of an amendment. I am sick, as may of us are, of liberal judges and activist minorities trying to run our lives! Most people are opposed to gay marriage-so why should a tyrannical minority impose their beliefs on us?
1
posted on
02/24/2004 12:36:02 PM PST
by
Mich0127
To: jmstein7
BUMP
2
posted on
02/24/2004 12:36:49 PM PST
by
Mich0127
(Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
To: Mich0127
IMO, the amendment has about as much chance of being ratified as the ERA did, maybe less.
3
posted on
02/24/2004 12:46:35 PM PST
by
templar
To: templar
I think it does have a chance. I think conservatives are fed up.
http://W-04.com
4
posted on
02/24/2004 12:53:57 PM PST
by
W04Man
(Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign visit W-04.com for FREE STICKERS)
To: Mich0127
... so why should a tyrannical minority impose their beliefs on us? They shouldn't, and the people should not tolerate such action from a judge. Guess a substantial number of people are willing to keep the defective judges, and just institute a new piece of text in the Constitution.
To draw a workplace analogy, at some point it's better to fire a defective worker than it is to institute another workplace rule.
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the object here. I'll take action whichever way it comes, but prefer to dump the judges.
5
posted on
02/24/2004 12:54:35 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Cboldt
Why can't we conservatives raise a "hissey-fit" like these gay activists do??? Why can't we "come out" and demonstrate for hetrosexual relationships????
....JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY???
6
posted on
02/24/2004 1:00:19 PM PST
by
smiley
To: W04Man
I think conservatives are fed up.Oh, I agree with that! I just don't there are enough conservatives left to make a whole lot of difference.
7
posted on
02/24/2004 1:01:58 PM PST
by
templar
To: W04Man
Ignor the disinformation. the DOMA passed with HUGE numbers. 38 states ahve DOMA and two more are working towards constitutional DOMAs
The HRC is desperate against FMA.
This will pass. It will be worth seeing kerry vote against marriage.
To: Mich0127
I'll ask you all again...
Bush favors civil unions. If we pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and yet give all the same benefits to sodomites under the name of "civil unions" what have we gained exactly?
No gay marriage.
No gay civil unions.
To: W04Man; All
This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
These members count the letters of support.
There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.
These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes Internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.
This is very doable.
BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA
|
|
|
|
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Dear [ Decision Maker ]
I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.
This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.
This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now.
This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures.
Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.
Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
To: smiley
"Why can't we conservatives raise a "hissey-fit" like these gay activists do??? Why can't we "come out" and demonstrate for hetrosexual relationships????"
That's a good question that I have also asked.
Maybe because we have real jobs. Activists drive social change, no doubt about that. Vocal minorities beat silent majorities. If we want our country back we are going to have to become active.
11
posted on
02/24/2004 1:13:10 PM PST
by
BadAndy
(Investigate Kerry's medals!)
To: All
Does the Amendment actually "BAN" Gay Marriage, or does it just say that if a particular state recognizes Gay Marriage the Federal Government will not, and that other States are not obligated to recognize it?
I think that is a huge distinction that needs to be made.
Every network (FOX included) has their banners reading that the President wants to ban Gay Marriage, yet from what I understand the Federal Government as of today doesn't perform marriage ceremonies, all they do is recognize them.
I am all for an Amendment that protects States Rights in this manner, but I don't think that is the message that is getting out. By saying that the Federal Government wants to ban Gay Marriages, instead of not recognizing Gay Marriage I think you are then denying rights, not expanding States Rights. Shouldn't there be a distinction?
12
posted on
02/24/2004 1:13:42 PM PST
by
codercpc
To: Mich0127
It's not enough!!! Bush is still a RINO! We need to elect a Democrat because Bush has not done everything conservatively enough to ostracize the middle of the road voters! I don't care about what best for the country overall and in the long run I only care about me and now!. . . .
< Do I really need to add a sarcasm tag here? >
13
posted on
02/24/2004 1:16:23 PM PST
by
Tempest
(Sigh.. ....)
To: codercpc
Do not underestimate the power of Federal denial. This is not only important for taxes but important for immigration.
There will be 53 different civil union laws. (purto rico,guam,dc) Some will be open to same sex couples some will only be for homosexuals.
It will also allow this AS A STATE ISSUE to point out that homosexuals have equal right to engage in cohabitation agreements. They have always had this same right. There will be no need for civil unions.
This has reached the tipping point. Next issue, curing/treating homosexuality as a pathology.
To: longtermmemmory
thanks for the wonderful letter. I will send it out and pass it on!
15
posted on
02/24/2004 1:32:12 PM PST
by
Mich0127
(Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
To: Mich0127
Most amendments are either involve government procedural issues or the guarantee or expansion of rights of the people. Those that affect a group of Americans negatively or prohibit them from engaging in certain acts are generally considered to be the worst -- the 16th and 18th.
I don't really care much about the issue since a couple of gays marrying doesn't affect me, but I do have a general problem with an amendment that is restrictive to the population. It's like with flag burning, where I strongly advocate beating the crap out of a flag burner, but won't advocate a restrictive amendment to ban it.
To: BadAndy
To answer your question, we can't raise hissy fits because it is not politically correct. We have to step around them on eggshells and worry that we might, oh no, offend someone.
These people need to understand that they made a conscious choice to have homosexual relations. So, deal with the fact that society does not want to look the other way and let you prance around, calling yourself married, and accept it!
17
posted on
02/24/2004 1:40:16 PM PST
by
Mich0127
(Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
To: antiRepublicrat
I think we at least need the threat of an amendment. The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.
Do I think the amendment will pass though: likely not. The last amendment imposing negative liberty was the Prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. However, we need to send a message across, and if an amendment or the threat of one will do the trick, so be it. Something needs to be done. We have to draw a line and protect the sanctity of marriage. Because if gay marriages are allowed, then we run into a slippery slope. Who is to say that a person can't marry their pet, their tree, their house, or even themselves? These justices are making a mockery of tradition and morality and a line must be drawn!
18
posted on
02/24/2004 1:47:14 PM PST
by
Mich0127
(Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
To: templar
I followed with care, as a constitutional lawyer, the fate of the ERA. I think, however, the better example is the Madison Amendment that was ratified in 1992, almost two centuries after then-Congressman James Madison wrote it as the second of the 17 original articles of the Bill of Rights. If the marriage gets out of the Senate (and that is the sticking point), I believe it will be promptly ratified by the states.
If the Marriage Amendment does not pass the Senate in this Session of Congress, I expect that it WILL pass the Senate in the next Session, after the membership of that body has changed.
Congressman Billybob
Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay.
19
posted on
02/24/2004 1:55:45 PM PST
by
Congressman Billybob
(www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
To: codercpc
The reason that this issue cannot be a "states rights" matter, is this: The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution requires EVERY state to recognize the official acts of other states. Therefore, if Massachusetts and the City of San Francisco (there's a "state" with "rights" for you) turn out married homosexuals, those couples can go to every other state and demand recognition as a married couple, because the US Constitution says so.
States can have their own motor vehicle codes. The law changes for the motorist when he crosses the line. But states cannot have their own laws on marriage, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Does that make sense to you?
Congressman Billybob
Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.
20
posted on
02/24/2004 2:02:59 PM PST
by
Congressman Billybob
(www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 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