Posted on 07/25/2005 9:37:46 AM PDT by davidosborne
LINK TO SJ RES 1(27 CO-SPONSORS)
COSPONSORS(27), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 1/24/2005 Sen Allen, George [VA] - 2/16/2005 Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 1/24/2005 Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 1/24/2005 Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 1/26/2005 Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 1/24/2005 Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 1/24/2005 Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] - 1/24/2005 Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/24/2005 Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 1/24/2005 Sen Frist, William H. [TN] - 1/24/2005 Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 1/24/2005 Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 1/24/2005 Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 1/24/2005 Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 1/24/2005 Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 1/24/2005 Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 1/24/2005 Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 1/24/2005 Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 1/24/2005 Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 1/24/2005 Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] - 1/24/2005 Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 1/24/2005 Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 1/26/2005 Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 1/24/2005 Sen Talent, Jim [MO] - 1/24/2005 Sen Thune, John [SD] - 1/24/2005 Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 1/24/2005
LINK to HJ RES 39 (15 CO-SPONSORS)
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/17/2005 Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 3/17/2005 Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/17/2005 Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 3/17/2005 Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 3/17/2005 Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 4/6/2005 Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 3/17/2005 Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 4/6/2005 Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 5/19/2005 Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 4/6/2005 Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/19/2005 Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 3/17/2005 Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/17/2005 Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 3/17/2005 Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 4/6/2005
Pass it on.. get on board... get your CONGRESSCRITTER on board..... MOVE this forward.....
Thanks for the ping!
Last Congrss REP. Musgrave got 131 CO-Sponsors.. and now this congress we only got a few.. we need to let our congress critters (HOUSE and SENATE) that they need to get on board by co-sponsoring this legislation.. and quit riding the fence on this issue..
States around the country are voting on this issue, and Americans do not want homosexual "marriage." It belittles everything America stands for. If the politicians ignore this one, it's at their own peril. The American people have spoken loud and clear!
BTTT!!!!!!!
My Senators here in Illinois are Durbin and Obama. Don't think I'll waste the electrons ....
Yes, you are absolutely right about the states voting on this issue--& therefore this should prove that it is totally unnecessary for the feds to get involved. I do NOT support amending the federal Constitution on this issue, because the states are handling this job quite well, thank you.
If the feds pass this constitutional amendment, then all of the work that has been done @ the state level would become totally naught. Please remember that we live in a FEDERAL system of government, where the most pressing issues are to be done @ the STATE & LOCAL levels, & the federal government is one of limited specified powers that are clearly spelled out. Quit giving Washington more & more power & responsibilities over our lives--it already has TOO MUCH power as it is! Quit trying to amend our Constitution for single-issue politics...get involved @ the state level & amend the state constitutions instead.
I agree with you about states rights. That's how it's SUPPOSE to work. Unfortunately, that's not how it does.
The pro-homos have already set up their law suits to fight it. They're trying to get the liberal activists on the SC to force it on the people, whether they like it or not. That's why the amendment is necessary.
The law suits against the "unyielding, disobedient" states will never end. The pro-homos are doing what they always do - dictate their own, personal wishes on everyone else through the courts, and go around the will of the American people.
The amendment is still unnecessary 'cuz Congress has the ability to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts--it can pass a law prohibiting the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from having a say in the homosexual marraige fiasco, & thus keep things @ the state level.
It would be a heck of a lot easier for Congress to do THAT rather than pass a constitutional amendment, & the decision would remain @ the state level where it belongs.
*Sigh* If only they would. I think either they're afraid of the court right now, or they're stepping lightly because we're about to take it over and they don't want to make too many waves.
A LOT of conservatives are opposed to Constitutional Ammendments.. including myself.. however in THIS case, I feel we really don't have any alternative... the Liberal State Courts have ruled that these folks have a "constitutional right" to get married... whenever the U.S. Constitution is misapplied a Constitutional Ammendment is required to settle the issue once and for all..
If the State's want to create some sort of legal "union" of same sex couples thats fine and dandy.. just can't call it marriage, and don't expect any legal "benefits" from it.
David
I think my credentials for being on the right side of the political aisle are well established...read my "About" page, for example. Those of us who support & respect FR don't need to deal w/ your insults--quit lowering yourself to the level of the radical lefties who can't tolerate the viewpoints of those they disagree w/. Hell, you sound like Whoopie Goldberg! Could the 2 of you be related???
BESIDES, I said that Congress has the authority to prevent the federal courts from forcing their will against the people in Nebraska like they did--all they need to do it limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, & the people can pass amendments to their STATE constitutions (which they are doing w/ very strong majorities) to prevent homosexual marraiges in their states. This would be a lot easier to do than passing a federal constitutional amendment, & wouldn't affect the federalist approach of our system of government.
Smoke a joint & relax, dude!
..and for that matter if a State DOES recognize the "union" than should they be able to file a "joint" federal tax return? If the Feds "ignore" the issue as you suggest the litigation would be endless.... IMHO
What say you?
For the umpteenth time, would you please remove me from your ping list?
BTTT!!!!!!
I've been thinking along the same lines for a long time. Marriage is a religious idea, and as long as religion is being forced from every corner of government, then government can just keep their hands off of religion.
OTOH, I don't know how you define 'benefits'. I figure if gays wish to have the same rights as straights, then they need to take on the same responsibilities also.
Then again, maybe we are all looking that the problem from the wrong angle...
I say, "Don't ping everybody on FR to your thread."
By any rationale, the same logic should apply. Of course, when it comes to guns, there's always an exception to be made. Wonder why that is?
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.