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.

[diamond6]

bump

[sasafras]

liberalslayer wrote,"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."

But govt. involvement is necessary becuase it is not just a personal or religious event. The idea of marriage bestows rights which are federally enforced in the Constitution for examples citizenship. You can not seperate them. We cant just pick and choose the elements to the Constitution we would like enforced (unless your a liberal judge of course).

[elephant]

Maybe you are correct in that this issue should be left with our churches but, what are you going to do when the LEFT shoves their agenda down your throat?

[LiberalSlayer99]

liberalslayer wrote,"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."

But govt. involvement is necessary becuase it is not just a personal or religious event. The idea of marriage bestows rights which are federally enforced in the Constitution for examples citizenship. You can not seperate them. We cant just pick and choose the elements to the Constitution we would like enforced (unless your a liberal judge of course).

I stated the citizenship issue in my response! Governments involvement is a CIVIL issue, NOT a personal/religious one.

[LiberalSlayer99]

Maybe you are correct in that this issue should be left with our churches but, what are you going to do when the LEFT shoves their agenda down your throat?

No pun intended I hope. Good point. With Rehnquist possibly retiring/dying over the next four years it is now imperative that Bush is elected. I would hate a liberal-dominated court.

This is the point I don't understand about the entire gay rights thing. I don't flaunt my heteorsexuality in public. Why does the gay rights crowd feel they need to flaunt their sexual choice? I don't want to know and don't care....and the government shouldn't care either.

[sasafras]

So? Your point?

[Sam the Sham]

To me, marriage is goes way beyond the realm of The State. The State should not have anything to do with marriage.

For the umpteenth time, marriage has never been just two people doing whatever they like. It is and has always been a solemn contract with lifelong obligations backed up by societal coercion. That is what marriage is. That is what it has always been.

In a society of one church, marriage was enforced by the coercion of being expelled from the church and therefore from civilized human society. In a society of fixed social relations and lifelong reputations, marriage was enforced by the coercion of disgrace, ostracism, and socioeconomic ruin. In a patriarchal society, marriage was enforced by the guns and swords of the woman's male kinsmen. The state is in the marriage business because excommunication, black balling, and violently upholding the honore di familia no longer exist in a modern, diverse society. As I keep saying, the only way libertarian attitudes towards marriage could ever work is if you had a closed monocultural society in which excommunication, ostracism, and duelling for provided the element of physical and societal coercion that without which, marriage and society will disintegrate.

[LiberalSlayer99]

In a society of one church, marriage was enforced by the coercion of being expelled from the church and therefore from civilized human society. In a society of fixed social relations and lifelong reputations, marriage was enforced by the coercion of disgrace, ostracism, and socioeconomic ruin. In a patriarchal society, marriage was enforced by the guns and swords of the woman's male kinsmen. The state is in the marriage business because excommunication, black balling, and violently upholding the honore di familia no longer exist in a modern, diverse society. As I keep saying, the only way libertarian attitudes towards marriage could ever work is if you had a closed monocultural society in which excommunication, ostracism, and duelling for provided the element of physical and societal coercion that without which, marriage and society will disintegrate.

And for the umpteenth time it belongs in the realm of religion, NOT the state.

[Sam the Sham]

And, as ever, what the libertarian refuses to comprehend is that the expansion of the state was created not by some liberal conspiracy, but by civil society asking it to do what clan, church, and tradition no longer can because we no longer live in closed worlds. The fewer traditions you have, the weaker the "code of conduct", the more laws you have to have.

Let's see if we can help you understand this. Let's take for instance laws against stalking. It was not possible to stalk a pre-liberated woman because there was no way past a phalanx of chaperones and her male kinsmen. But once women are liberated and on their own, without their male kinsmen controlling their lives, the downside to their freedom is that that bodyguard of male kinsmen to protect them from bad men is no longer there. So single women look to the state and sexual harrassment laws to afford them patriarchal protections but without Father running their lives.

You ramble about "holding people responsible for their actions", ignoring the fact that civil society asks the law to do this because it no longer can do so through ostracism, excommunication, duelling, or fear of "what the neighbors will say". You flatly ignore the vital cultural role of naked coercion (no society has ever rested on airy, sentimental appeals to "personal responsibility") in controlling anti-social behavior. Marriage has always been backed up by coercion and always will be because it is that important to society, so rambling about how it is purely a matter of religion ignores post-Pleistocene human cultural development. So it is ridiculous to talk about "taking government out of the marriage business".

[LiberalSlayer99]

And Republicans refuse to acknowledge is that we are increasingly a "nanny" state. I should be shocked that not only do you endorse this philosophy, but you believe it is a requirement of a "civil society."

Stalking DOES harm another so your justification for the more laws has little weight.

In terms of laws that govern PERSONAL behavior, the government has become increasingly more intrusive. You're willing to give up not only your freedom but the freedom of others. Society CAN hold people responsible for personal behavior, but government intrusiveness has denied us that ability...and your solution? More government.

Suffice it to say, we agree to disagree.