Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DOMA Goes Down In Flames - ACT NOW FOR Federal Mariage Ammendment
http://www.grasstopsusa.com/fma.html ^ | http://www.grasstopsusa.com/fma.html | http://www.grasstopsusa.com/fma.html

Posted on 02/10/2005 10:34:34 AM PST by davidosborne

Black-robed tyrant -- Judge Doris Ling-Cohan -- decreed on Friday that it would be "irrational and perverse" to deny homosexuals the "right" to marry. Can you believe it! Now it is "perverse" NOT to allow homosexuals to marry! With a single arbitrary slam of her gavel, Ling-Cohan impose HER INDIVIDUAL WILL on the City of New York and struck down a New York law which was originally established in the 19th Century. Ling-Cohan did not just make a travesty of the law when issuing her proclamation. She trampled on the will of the people of New York, the will of the American people, the will of the governor, the will of the President of the United States and she trampled on the Constitution like it was her personal door mat. However, Ling-Cohan in making her proclamation just made a liar of all the liberal and RINO (Republican in Name Only) Senators -- like John McCain -- who told us last year that a Federal Marriage Amendment was simply not necessary. We need a Federal Marriage Amendment NOW! Now is the time to renew the fight


TOPICS: US: New York
KEYWORDS: blackrobedtyrant; doma; fma; heilcohan; judicialactivism; lingcohan; marriageammendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2005 10:34:35 AM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

>>>decreed on Friday that it would be "irrational and perverse"<<

Um excuse me but wouldn't allowing them to marry be irrational and perverse???? Sodomy is still a felony in some States.


2 posted on 02/10/2005 10:36:50 AM PST by rockabyebaby (What goes around, comes around!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennieOsborne; /\XABN584; 3D-JOY; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...

passing it on...

This is exactly why we must accelerate the Federal Marriage Ammendemnt !!

Calendar No. 620

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 40
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 7, 2004
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time


July 8, 2004
Read the second time and placed on the calendar







JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

`This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.
Calendar No. 620


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 40

JOINT RESOLUTION


3 posted on 02/10/2005 10:39:27 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby
Um excuse me but wouldn't allowing them to marry be irrational and perverse???? Sodomy is still a felony in some States.

Actually, I think all those laws were overturned by the Supreme Court concerning Texax a couple years back.

4 posted on 02/10/2005 10:41:17 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby
Sodomy is still a felony in some States.

Not since the Supreme Court's ruling a couple of years ago.

5 posted on 02/10/2005 10:41:38 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby

Well I guess it is possible for two gentlemen to get "married" and never commit the act of sodomy. Maybe they will just be "friends".


6 posted on 02/10/2005 10:42:49 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

7 posted on 02/10/2005 10:44:36 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
We need a Federal Marriage Amendment NOW!

Excuse me. But why do we need to immediately jump to amend the Constitution over this? The judge's ruling does not apply outside of New York and it hasn't even been through the appeals process (where it will most likely be overturned).

It's this kind of knee-jerk reaction that is the cause of a lot of crappy laws in this country. Calm down, drink decaf, and wait for the process we already have in place to work before overturning the apple cart.

Being a conservative means that you want to conserve things the way they are, you don't want to go out all flame-eyed and radically alter things just because you have your panties in a wad. Leave that to the Democrats -- that's what they do best. We are better than they are.

8 posted on 02/10/2005 10:46:14 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

criminal homosexual sodomy was overturned.

The question is where the NY Supremes will allow the case to stand. I don't think they will.

There is also the CT situation which has some legislators attempting to prevent DOMA by making homosexual marriage legal first.

Then Virginia is going to put outlawing civil unions right next to their DOMA in 2006.

The FMA is needed. The problem is that senators want to sit on their cushy posteriors and let the 1996 DMA overturned FIRST before they do anything. It is playing politics rather than solutions.


9 posted on 02/10/2005 10:46:39 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

There is no jump. Marriage is already a federal issue. Immigration spousal visas and joint tax returns.

If anything by amending the constitution the issue is returned to the states for any marriage lite they may wish.


10 posted on 02/10/2005 10:48:25 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Judges have the responsibility to interpret laws. Rational assessment may sometimes be required in this duty. Perversity, however, is an emotional term with very negative connotation. Sounds like this activist mixed emotion with jurisprudence, and proposely inflamed the public by claiming her higher moral understanding. The people need to remove her from the bench.


11 posted on 02/10/2005 10:49:05 AM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

BTTT!!!!!!


12 posted on 02/10/2005 10:49:53 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

This issue is such a fundamental social question, that I believe if we do not settle the question of the DEFINITION of marriage we will be having this debate forever... I don't think it is wise to jump to the constitution on every little issue, but this has simply gone too far for too long... lets pass the FMA and move on with our lives, and as a nation stand up for the definition of marriage as being ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Letting this silly "debate" go on does tremendous damage to our nation, and destroys the values of our society. PASS THE FMA, and settle the issue period!


13 posted on 02/10/2005 10:51:30 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

>>>criminal homosexual sodomy was overturned.<<<

Criminal sodomy - Is there any other kind? lol!


14 posted on 02/10/2005 10:53:09 AM PST by rockabyebaby (What goes around, comes around!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
What I find most disturbing about the discussion of "gay rights" is that a preference is being given equal footing with immutable characteristics, e.g., skin color. A sexual preference is still a preference, much like gentlemen preferring blonds.

You can't change your skin color or ethnicity by simply not being black, brown, or Lithuanian anymore. But by not having gay sex anymore you stop being gay. Sexual technique is the only identifier with being gay, i.e., it is a behavior. Behaviors can be started, stopped, or modified.

Now, if there are any gay genetic researchers out there that can prove beyond a reasonable scientific doubt that homosexuality is genetic, I'll be the best man at your wedding.

15 posted on 02/10/2005 10:53:29 AM PST by Che Chihuahua (Liberals are by nature purveyors of mediocre equine byproducts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Che Chihuahua

BTTT


16 posted on 02/10/2005 10:57:01 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
I agree with you. I am disturbed by the notion that the constitution will be used to limit rights of citizens, this should be left to the states.

Furthermore, there are some churches that already perfom marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. An amendment would be trampling on the rights of those churches. Not a precedent I want to see either.
17 posted on 02/10/2005 11:04:05 AM PST by Yinzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yinzer

You must be kidding.. no one is suggesting we prohibit religous organizations from conducting ceremonies of any type. However we as a nation do not need to be forced to recognize those ceremonies, they can have meaning to the individuals involved, and mean nothing to the rest of us. Botom line, LEGAL MARRIAGE in the USA must be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.


18 posted on 02/10/2005 11:07:24 AM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Letting this silly "debate" go on does tremendous damage to our nation, and destroys the values of our society. PASS THE FMA, and settle the issue period!



Agree, this issue is responsible for all the other connecting issues, and in fact the gay agenda planned it that way. It is responsible for the hate crimes laws, the homosexual organization and their teachings in our schools, all of it. Marriage is, to them, the foundation for normalization. If it is considered normal to be homosexual, they then can teach it in school, get more hate crime legislation passed, any number of hundreds of issues.

It is a federal issue when you take Social Security and federal income tax into consideration. Plus, being education HAS gone federal.........the federal government is forced to fund the teachings in schools, via tolerance education. If we had the amendment, the government could then be in a position to say no funding for schools who teach unnatural sex to children.


19 posted on 02/10/2005 11:07:46 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yinzer

But you assume that those states will be allowed to vote on it, and it is pretty clear, that leaving it up to states, is in fact leaving it up to Judges. We need the amendment which calls for the ability of Judges to impose this on states to be stopped.


20 posted on 02/10/2005 11:10:00 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson