Posted on 06/06/2006 7:30:33 AM PDT by rface
**According to Sen. Kennedy, biggots oppose giving homosexuals the right to marry. The DOM act was promoted by Pres. Clinton and was overwhelmingly approved by the US Senate and House. Here's the wording of that act and here's the role call.....and the list of Kennedy's biggots. Kennedy did not support the DOM act.
1 . Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.3396.ENR]
(you might have to cut/past this address to get the link)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:1:./temp/~c104busXY4::
One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six
An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof `No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: `1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse' `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
.
YEAs ---85
I highlighted persons of interest ......
Abraham (R-MI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Ford (D-KY)
Frahm (R-KS)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Pell (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Simon (D-IL)
Wyden (D-OR)
Keep talking Teddy
I believe that Massachusetts voters stated that Marriage is to be between one man and one woman - but the State Supreeme Court overturned the vote of the people.....
What’s your point? It’s a ten-year old vote, where RINO’s and DemonRats voted “yea” without any impact, as liberal activist judges have long since invalidated the statute.
"even here in England that would be considered a clear case of self-defence."
It also told the legislature they had to pass a law permitting same sex marriage.
When did that happen?
Neither of SD's Senators are listed. One Dem One Rep.
Daschle was your Senator in '96
...and now I see why. Pressler and Daschle, that was a long time ago.
Pressler was the other
Statement of Fact: High Schoolers graduate HS and too many of them can't read or write. The value of a HS Diploma is getting lower and lower.
QUESTION: Should we, as a society, allow this deterioration to continue...and perhaps even allow more and more unqualified students to graduate? Should we accept the further errosion of the value of a HS Diploma, or should we do something that makes this diploma worth something?
Statement of Fact: The State of Marriage has deteriorated over the last several decades.....for many reasons that you have listed.
QUESTION: Should we, as a society, allow this deterioration to continue...and perhaps even allow more and more unqualified people to marry? Should we accept the further errosion of the value of amarriage, or should we do something that makes marriage worth something more than what it currently is? Some people say "let it deteriorate" I say, lets examine the problems and do something to strengthen this institution.
No-Fault divorce might be something to look at, as well as many of the other issues you have brought up. Further diluting the institution of marriage does not strengthen marriage. It weakens our communities.
When did that happen?
I must’ve been thinking of state court liberal activist judges, rather than federal court liberal activist judges. The statute still stands at the federal level, but I’ve heard commentators over the last couple of years say that it is vulnerable to a “constitutional” attack in federal court, thus necessitating an amendment to the Constitution.
Be Gone Leftist Troll!!!
He is going to have a difficult election if he voted against it..
FYI -the 1996 DOMA vote -- Yays & Nays...
Apparently EVEN some dummicrats were bigoted homophobes wishing to debate this non-issue and then shockingly enact discriminatory legislation...
Good question. Others here might look at such conservative thinking and conclude it nothing but the droolings of a leftist troll. Unfortunately, they have a right to post here too. Keep up the good posts.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court majority has slandered all of us who think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
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.