Marriage Amendment Author Attacked by Homosexual Lobby Seeks Help!

Musgrave for Congress ^ | 10/21/2004 | agitate

[Agitate]

I received this from Marylyn Musgrave who authored the Federal Marriage Ammendment. Of course, she is being attacked by the wealthy homosexual lobby who think they can buy American culture and twist it to their liking. I hope people can help her out and she stays in office.

Friday, October 15th, 2004

      Dear friend of the family,

      Radical homosexual-agenda leaders have declared me Public Enemy #1 and are spending over a million dollars on vicious, false TV ads to defeat me.

      I need your help.

      You may know that I have been the U.S. House leader to protect traditional marriage from the radical agenda of the homosexual lobby by sponsoring the Marriage Protection Amendment.

      What you may not know is that the last sponsor of the Amendment was defeated for re-election, and now the bull's eye is on my back.

      Leaders of the homosexual lobby know if they can take me out, no one will stand against them in the future.

     I have no other choice but to ask for urgent help from pro-family Americans like you.

     Here is what we are up against:

     Three multi-millionaire, pro-gay marriage donors to my liberal Democrat opponent have already maxed out their contributions to his campaign.

     So they created a front organization called a "527" to attack me from the shadows with some of the most dishonest and vile attacks anyone has ever seen.

     One TV ad has an actress pretending to be me, looting a corpse in a funeral home!

      Of course, the ad is full of distorted facts and blatant lies.

     The most offensive ad is where the actress portraying me is stealing money out of the wallet of a soldier during combat!

      These ads could defeat me if I don't get immediate help so I can defend my record and our values.

      Unfortunately it looks like these ads are just the beginning of a string of hurtful and disgraceful ads my opponent and his radical pro-homosexual marriage backers will be running through Election Day.

      They will stop at nothing.

     In fact, my staff has checked with the TV stations and they’ve bought about $1,000,000 of airtime for these horrible ads.

      With such a huge media buy, they could succeed in defeating me and crush the pro-marriage movement.

     The truth is, these ads cannot go unanswered, we have to confront these lies and expose their deception – at the same time defend my conservative record and our shared values.

      My goal is to launch an ad campaign that not only meets theirs, but surpasses it.

      But to do so will cost a tremendous amount of money, money that I just don’t have, that’s why I’m asking for your help today.

      I need to raise $450,000 in the next two weeks if we are going to put out our ads in time to make a difference.

      That may sound like a lot, but I am certain with help from pro-family supporters like you we can do it.

      There is literally no time to wait.

      Please, please send my re-election campaign a generous donation of $250, $100, or $50 or even $25, today. The maximum any one person can give is $2000.

      The fact is, any amount you can give will help me withstand the mudslinging from my radical opponents and allow me to return to Congress to keep leading the fight for our traditional family values.

      To make it more convenient for you, I set up this special web page for you to use your credit card: http://www.musgrave2004.com/donation.html.

     Or click here to go to the end of the email and fill out the convenient mail-in form.

      Your donation will allow me to launch an ad campaign to answer the lies and deceptions of my opponent and the liberal special interests.

      To be honest, seeing these ads has been very stressful on my family and me.

      I’m also worried that if I don’t raise enough money for our ad campaign, I will be powerless to respond to these vicious attacks against me.

     Unlike the homosexual lobbies’ ads, my ad campaign will be based on truth and compare my solid record to that of my opponent, liberal Democrat Stan Matsunaka

      Stan Matsunaka fears the truth because he knows his record in the State Senate shows he supports homosexual marriage and will promote it as a U.S. Congressman.

      If we allow these vicious ads to go unanswered then Stan Matsunaka and the radical homosexual lobby could succeed by deceiving the voters, and win on Election Day.

      That’s why I so urgently need your help today. We are so close to the election day, please help me.

     Please let me know I can count on you by sending your generous support of $500, $250, $100, $50, or $25 or whatever you can afford, to help counter the vicious attacks from my pro-gay marriage opponents.

     I hope you will do so right away by going to http://www.musgrave2004.com/donation.html or by going to the end of the email and filling out the mail-in form.

     Truly, this is an emergency turn of events for my campaign and for the whole pro-family movement.

      Remember that the last Congressman to introduce a Marriage Protection Amendment was defeated for re-election.

      Please don't let these millionaire, pro-gay marriage leaders get away with stealing this election. Please help.

      God bless.

Sincerely, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R) 4th District, Colorado

P.S.

I truly need your help right away. The $1 million of nasty and vicious attack ads against me are being funded by angry liberals in order to defeat me because of my leadership to defend marriage between one man and one woman. If you wait, it could be too late to help at this most critical last stage of the election. PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR SECURE ONLINE CONTRIBUTION TO ENSURE CONGRESSWOMAN MUSGRAVE CAN KEEP FIGHTING THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY IN SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. Print out this form and mail your contribution directly to Congresswoman Musgrave:

************************** CLIP-N-PRINT AND MAIL *****************************

USE THIS FORM TO MAIL IN YOUR PRO-MARRIAGE CONTRIBUTION TO:

"Musgrave for Congress"
Attn: Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave
5401 Stone Creek Circle, Suite 777
Loveland, CO 80538

(PLEASE CHECK THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS):

___ $4,000 =

$2,000 FOR YOU AND SPOUSE (legal maximum for a couple)

___ $2,000 =legal maximum for an individual

___ $1,000

___ $500

___ $100

___ $50

___ OTHER AMOUNT: _____________________

NAME: ___________________________________________

ADDRESS: __________________________________________

CITY/STATE/ZIP: ________________________________________

HOME PHONE: (________)________________________________

WORK PHONE: (________)__________________________

EMPLOYER: ________________________________________

OCCUPATION: ________________________________________

******************************************************************************

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TOP

Authorized and paid for by Musgrave for Congress
5401 Stone Creek Cr., Ste. 777 * Loveland, CO 80538
www.Musgrave2004.com

If you can't donate today, click here for support and/or to stay informed of future attacks on the family.
This email address was given by permission. If this is an error please unsubscribe to be removed from this list.

[Lindykim]

snip...So do I have a case your honor?!


Only on one condition: you must be wearing your official tinfoil hat!!!

[ApesForEvolution]

Only on one condition: you must be wearing your official tinfoil hat!!!

LOL! Ok, well...don't tell anyone, but mine's fitted.

[WildTurkey]

Rather than replying with an ad hominem attack, refute it with a well-defended view.

Everyone, except Libertarians, knows that society has a right and a duty to promote those morals and ceremonies that enhance a societies ability to survive. Without that, there is chaos and anarchy.

[LiberalSlayer99]

LOL.

As explained in an earlier thread, whether consent is given or not is irrelevant if another party is harmed. I've stated this position numerous times.

As I responded in the earlier thread. I don't condone the homosexual lifestyle and I blame liberals for forcing acceptance of deviant behavior on the majority of the population. The "Everyone is a Victim" mantra also makes it difficult for the rest of society to react to actions that are inappropriate.

The major disagreement is what do we do about it. I'm not proposing anarchy, but the Federal intrusiveness on private lives is an issue. The majority of Americans are not allowed to voice their discontent with what they feel is deviant behavior. Equal protection clauses have given deviants more power than ordinary citizens.

[LiberalSlayer99]

What they have is the latter, which can also be said to be an 'imagined sense' of privacy. Now if this "imagined sense' of privacy is a "right", and rights are created by secular humanist man, then it logically follows that people who would like to have sex in public should have that right under the criterian set forth by secular humanist man. If 'private conversations' can be held in public spaces, then so too can 'private sex between consenting adults' be held in public spaces. The 'wrong-doers' in this case would not be those engaging in 'private-public' sex, it would be the "eavesdroppers". This is moral law turned upside-down.

There is no expectation of privacy for actions performed in public. Furthermore, actions of individuals that take place in public are subject to social scrutiny.

[LiberalSlayer99]

Everyone, except Libertarians, knows that society has a right and a duty to promote those morals and ceremonies that enhance a societies ability to survive. Without that, there is chaos and anarchy.

At issue here is that you believe in the nebulous power of "The State". In your estimation, "The State" provides that right and duty. Yes, we need laws for without we'd have anarchy. However, the powers you'd like to propose to grant to "The State" over private individuals would enforce your version of morality. What if my version or morality is that killing animals for food is wrong, everyone that did so should be locked up, and we should all be vegetarians?

As stated in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator (not necessarily YOUR Creator) with certain unalienable rights (Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness...happiness is a pursuit, not a "right"). The State gets the power from the consent of the people, NOT The State giving you those rights...those rights are unalienable...The State exists to SECURE those rights.

The Libertarian philosopy is that individual rights are guaranteed...NOT simply allowed or tolerated by the State. People are free to choose their own path so long as they don't infringe on those same rights of another citizen. As many people have stated here, gay-marriage hurts society. The essential question is how does it infringe on YOUR unalienable rights?

[WildTurkey]

At issue here is that you believe

Now just start right over. You have no idea what "I believe" so don't go down that tangent.

[WildTurkey]

The Libertarian philosopy is that individual rights are guaranteed...NOT simply allowed or tolerated by the State.

What right are you being denied by the Marriage Amendment?

[tuesday afternoon]

Isn't marriage a public act?

[LiberalSlayer99]

What right are you being denied by the Marriage Amendment?

Personally nothing.

However, what of other citizens that will be denied their inherent rights?

[WildTurkey]

However, what of other citizens that will be denied their inherent rights?

Which rights?

[LiberalSlayer99]

Isn't marriage a public act?

Yes and no. Yes in that most people get married in front of friends and family. But most weddings are not open to the general public (try crashing a wedding party sometime). No in that it doesn't have to be a public act.

[LiberalSlayer99]

Now just start right over. You have no idea what "I believe" so don't go down that tangent.

Fair enough. Then please explain what you believe in regards to this issue and why.

[freestyle]

>>Article XXVIII
With respect to human relationships, the Constitution recognizes the term "marriage" solely to describe the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

>>Would you support that?

>>>>No, for reasons stated earlier in the thread. I don't think the government should have any business in the marriage business.

Just curious.... How does that put them in the business of marriage? It is a statement of definition... of fact... which only serves to clarify.

I agree with you that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. I also don't think that judges should be in the "lawmaking" business either. The above suggested text for an amendment is not what is being suggested currently. What is being suggested goes much further then a simple definition, and regulates what states can recognize. I see that as a problem. I think the constitution is there to enumerate rights, not restrict them.

But the above is a definition only. It is clarity that would allow everyone to move forward on clear footing. It does not "outlaw" anything.

The problem (as I see it) is that the meaning of the word is being changed and interpreted randomly state to state. Yet, the defition (in reality) is clear. A "marriage" is the combination of two different things (i.e. "a marriage of strength and beauty" makes sense, but "a marriage of strength and strength" does not).

If we can all go ahead with the understanding that "gay-marriage" is an oxymoron by definition, then there is no longer a reason for anyone to suggest the federal government gets involved.

[tuesday afternoon]

It's still a public act in that it must be registered publically.

[freestyle]

>>>As many people have stated here, gay-marriage hurts society. The essential question is how does it infringe on YOUR unalienable rights?

Assuming it is FACT that gay-marriage hurts society, then doesn't it infringe on my ability to pursue happiness? How can we pursue happiness in a society that knowingly allows itself to be hurt?

However, my opposition to gay "marriage" is not that it hurts society (I'll let others prove this as fact). The issue is that you can not call a hippopotamus a swan. Gay "marriage" is an oxymoron by definition.

[LiberalSlayer99]

I definitely agree with you about judges. Michigan is set to pass an ammendment to the State Constitution making "marriage" a union between a man and a woman. I'm in favor of the individual states making that determination as opposed to the federal government.

If we can all go ahead with the understanding that "gay-marriage" is an oxymoron by definition, then there is no longer a reason for anyone to suggest the federal government gets involved.

Point taken.

[LiberalSlayer99]

It's still a public act in that it must be registered publically.

My point is that it shouldn't be.

To me, marriage is goes way beyond the realm of The State. The State should not have anything to do with marriage. If what we're talking about is semantics in that the state needs data to track for citizenship purposes, then all unions should be civil unions as marriage goes beyond that realm.

[sasafras]

LiberalSlayer wrote,"Apples and Oranges. The point is what people do in the privacy of their own home SO LONG AS they aren't hurting anyone else, should be NONE of the government's business."

It is not apples and oranges - again you are defining what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is not just a sex act in private - it is the public affirmaation through marriage that is at issue. If your whole argument is that this is only a private affair (a sex act) then you have no argument. Furthtermore, Who defines consensual, you? the court? well we know that can change dont we?

The point Im driving home for you is that homosexual marriage is not a private act. It is the publc affirmation of its legal standing that is at issue. And which stands to de-value the definition of marriage.

[LiberalSlayer99]

The point Im driving home for you is that homosexual marriage is not a private act. It is the publc affirmation of its legal standing that is at issue. And which stands to de-value the definition of marriage.

I think you're missing my point. That federal government involvement in marriage is unnecessary and unwarranted. As I stated earlier, marriage is a personal and normally religious ceremony. As far as the government is concerned, they need to know (marriage) for citizenship and tax reasons. Yes, I'm aware we're talking semantics here, but if we're talking government, then we're talking all unions are technically civil unions. That is my point.