Posted on 07/07/2004 3:51:26 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republican leaders who were once unenthusiastic about President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment against recognizing gay marriages now say they plan to bring the idea to a vote just before next November's election.
Senate Republicans want to force votes on the amendment in the next two weeks, just before Democrats convene to nominate Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry as their candidate to unseat Bush.
Also in July, the House plans to debate a measure that would give state courts rather than certain federal ones jurisdiction of gay marriage cases.
"We feel like marriage is under attack. Marriage is a spiritual bond between one man and one woman," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Wednesday.
"I came to realize, in the end, we're going to have to do a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage."
He said House GOP leaders expect to debate the constitutional amendment in September.
The Senate has scheduled time in the next two weeks for debate on its own proposed amendment, though sponsors acknowledge the difficulty of getting the two-thirds majority needed for approval.
President Bush announced his support for an amendment in February.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, has begun a television and Internet advertising campaign aimed at defeating the congressional efforts.
The amendment "is unnecessary, discriminatory and undermines the Constitution," said the group's president, Cheryl Jacques.
Kerry and his vice presidential candidate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. Neither would support a constitutional amendment.
Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The bill dealing with jurisdiction of court cases would leave decisions about legalizing gay marriage in state courts and prevent federal judges from hearing cases that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage in federal law as the union between a man and a woman.
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."
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.
