Posted on 07/07/2004 3:51:26 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
Good.
I want to see exactly where each (R) stands on this issue.
I believe the spur is the ACLU lawsuit filed in MD. Its a good backdrop towards re-orienting the fall campaign around the issues of values --- family and judicial activism. Precisely the areas where the Democrats are most vulnerable.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - This Should Be Interesting. Let's see who votes which way.
Considering the 18 RINO Senators who voted for the "hate crimes" abomination recently, I have little hope for anything good coming out of the Senate.
How I wish some real conservatives would win some Senate seats.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I know how my rep Sensenbrenner will vote.
Apply tagline and enjoy the fireworks..............
Excellent piece of strategery.
Lets see now, the HRC. Methinks there is some prominent presidential wannabee with those initials. Pure coincidence?
"Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., has written legislation to remove marriage from certain federal courts.
In a May statement explaining the bill, he said, "Simply put, if federal courts don't have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can't hear them. And if they can't hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can't redefine this sacred institution and establish a national precedent for homosexual marriage."
I am VERY glad to see this. But, I wish he could
apply this legislation to State courts.
Why not just keep it simple and re-affirm that NO court has the power to re-define ANY word which is already legally defined. Think of how many problems that will avoid in the future.
To allow the Mass. Supreme Court's mis-application of its powers to re-define the word, 'marriage,' is to effectively destroy the rule of law and separation of powers.
> Hi All,
>
> There is a critical vote coming up for the Federal
> Marriage Amendment Act.
> At this point, it looks like it will be defeated ...
> unless we rally our
> support now! One of our own Senators, John McCain,
> is undecided.
> Unbelievable!
>
> (By the way, don't be confused: a "yes" vote means
> "no" to Gay Marriage! A
> "no" vote means "yes" to gay marriage.)
>
>
> Follow the link below to add your name to this
> important petition in support
> of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Go to
> http://www.nogaymarriage.com to
> sign.
On behalf of every conservative Christian in RI (all three of us), I'd like to pre-apologize for how our congresscritters will be voting on this issue.
Yes, even Chafee *ptooie!* the f--king RINO.
IMHO, a constitutional is not the way to go, the best path is:
USC Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
Why? because amendment is a looooong path to take, whereas a statute is passed as all other bill are with a simple majority.
I think both paths should be pursued.
This is a good start.
We need a lot more of these bills, as you have suggested, to rein in the Courts.
Keep your knickers on group - nothing meaningful will happen with this before the election. Just bringing it up seems a bit like a cat and a fur ball - expected & uneventful.
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.