Is this ok then?
Posted on 07/17/2006 12:06:51 PM PDT by DBeers
Washington D.C. (AHN) - House Republicans are going ahead to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The vote is scheduled for Tuesday as part of a week in which House GOP leaders plan to focus on what they call their "American values agenda."
In one of his weekly radio addresses, President Bush said changing the Constitution is necessary because "activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years.
Last month, the Senate was short of the 11 of the 60 votes needed to advance the proposal to a yes-or-no decision.
Although the vote was close, opponents of same-sex marriage considered it a success.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council told the Associated Press, "The more this issue is discussed, the more people understand the threat" (posed by activist courts).
Perkins said the votes in Congress enable the majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage "to look and see if the people in Washington represent them and stand on the same side."
Massachusetts is currently the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry, but the state's high court ruled this month that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in future can be put on the ballot.
- Washington: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in March 2005 in a case in which 19 couples seek to overturn the state's Defense of Marriage Act. It's unclear when the court might rule.
- Massachusetts: On on November 18th, 2003, in a 4/3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed homosexual "marriage" upon the citizens of Massachusetts. Conservative citizens have responded to the activist judiciary with a Constitutional Amendment referendum effort now at the stage of requiring approval by 25% of the legislature, or 50 members, in two successive sessions before it goes to the ballot in 2008. A simple majority of citizens voting in support of the referendum will make it an amendment to the state constitution and end the imposed homosexual "marriage" social experiment into the realm of delusion.
- New Jersey: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Feb. 15; it's unclear when the court might rule.
- New York: On July 6, 2006 the state Court of Appeals, held the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."
- Georgia: The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously on July 6, 2006 that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures.
- California: A state court last year ruled that barring same-sex marriage is against the state Constitution. An appeals court heard the case on July 10, 2006. The three-judge panel has 90 days to rule. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
- Nebraska: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 14, 2006 reversed an U.S. District ruling by Judge Bataillon, who ruled last year that a marriage amendment was too broad and deprived homosexuals of participation in the political process. In ruling, The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
- Maryland: A judge on January 20 struck down a 1973 state ban on same-sex marriages. The state has appealed the ruling.
- Connecticut: On July 12, 2006, Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins ruled against eight same-sex couples who filed suit against the state in August 2004 after being denied marriage licenses. The eight Connecticut couples have said they intend to appeal the Superior Court ruling.
- Iowa: A trial in a gay marriage lawsuit is scheduled before a state judge for Oct. 23, 2006.
Please ping me with any updates and or corrections to this.
Thanks!
Hey now, that ain't yer job.
And voting for Gay Marriage would be pandering to the Victory Fund.
http://victoryfund.org
'Brought to you by, David Mixner'
What would the FMA do?
The Amendment ONLY bans activist judges...
A legitimate understanding of the Amendment hinges principally on one word, "construe", which one should assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any assessment suggesting a banning when the freedom of the legislature is maintained.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. 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.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
The Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe any novel marital constructs e.g. two men, three women, a goat and a lounge singer, etcetera and leaves open the question(s) to be legislatively addressed ONLY at both federal and state levels...
The hyperbole and propaganda coming from the enraged leftists opposed to this amendment is frenzied and tin foil hatted -no doubt, WHEN it passes, be it sooner or later, leftist heads will explode scattering tin foil everywhere authentic freedom reins over social engineering leftists.
Amen, brother. The Religious Right got the candidate of their dreams, and the man turned out to be a complete moron.
If you wish to pander to the homosexual left THEN do it on DU.
Vermont's lessons on gay marriage
By Howard Dean | May 17, 2004
"IN THE SPRING of 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union not only to recognize same-sex partnerships, but to make sure that every single right outlined in the Vermont Constitution and Vermont laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual Vermonters. Every right but one. Gay and lesbian Vermonters do not have the right to call their unions marriage." (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/17/vermonts_lessons_on_gay_marriage/)
The charade of using the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" should not prevent us from recognizing Vermont for their step down the slippery slope.
Is this ok then?
-I am sure the Massachusetts Supreme Court would find it okay.
Nobody is going to amend our Constitution for frivolous reasons arising from the self-serving agendas of mullahs, imams, priests, preachers.
Hey leftist. You objectively attempt to conflate "reason" with "person" and then attempt to disparage any "reason" as frivolous simply because a religious person may support it.
Not funding a socialist village where homosexual sex couplings get a societal handout for contributing nothing to society -deal with that reason leftist...
BTTT.
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.