The Alliance for Marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm

[Desdemona]

Well, there is a lot of exuberance, which is good, but not much in the way of details.

It looks like it's going to be one heck of a fight and all the little coalitions need to united or there's going to be mass confussion.

[AntiGuv]

Yep, I'm quite intrigued with how this all goes down. Whatever the outcome, it should prove quite pivotal. Hey, check out my posts #15, #39, and #45 if you haven't already.

[Antoninus]

I'm all for an amendment. I think we need it, and I would vote for it. But the link you gave isn't very helpful as far as giving concrete steps we each can take to get the amendment out to the states for a vote.

I know. There isn't much out there at the moment. Let's not forget that this just happened last week. We're not even through the "outrage" stage of this yet. The "nose to the grindstone" work will begin very soon. Free Republic will be a good place for those of us interested in getting things moving to compare notes on whose leading the charge, who we should throw our support behind, who's making progress and who's wasting their time.

Let's all keep our eyes out and keep each other posted, eh?

[Antoninus]

It looks like it's going to be one heck of a fight and all the little coalitions need to united or there's going to be mass confussion.

Righto. We'll just have to be patient for a litte while to see how things start to shake out...

[DAnconia55]

No provisions for a "Federal marriage licence" are necessary at all. The text of the amendment should be simple and straight forward. Four or five sentences max

"Temporary 1% income tax on only millionaires."

Yeah. Heard all the b4. Once you let them get in the door, they'll take it over.

The government is worse than the mob.

[GraniteStateConservative]

So, you really think this is a real issue? You think we'll actually amend the Constitution for DOMA?

[AntiGuv]

So, you really think this is a real issue?

Of course I really think this is a real issue. The Federal Marriage Amendment has already been introduced in the House and the Senate Majority Leader has endorsed its introduction in the Senate. Do you think either 145 representatives or 34 senators will vote against the motions? [DOMA passed 85-15 and 342-67]

Once it clears the Senate, it will require only one member of each State legislative chamber to present for ratification. At that point, every legislator will have to go on record in some fashion or another either in support or opposition to gay marriage. I've counted at least 23-26 States that are likely to ratify in the very next session, with a minimal amount of political pressure.

The FMA advocates will need focus their funds & energy on but a dozen or so States to bring about ratification within the next seven years. If the fail to do so under the current composition of those legislatures, they will no doubt make it the central issue in the following election. Based on the Vermont precedent, the likelihood that this issue could turn over any recalcitrant legislatures is quite strong.

Meanwhile, there's an excellent chance either Massachusetts or New Jersey will legalize same-sex marriage and spark a nationwide 50-state court battle as well as throw FMA supporters into hyperdrive. That's aside from the liberal media furor & gay family sob stories & whatever. There will be a race between FMA and an eventual SCOTUS ruling (which would be irrelevant, anyhow).

The likelihood that the FMA will not come into force is exceedingly slim in my view unless the Dems decide they will stand or fall on this issue & halt its passage in the Senate. I'm not holding my breath. The only other possibility is if GWB [meaning Rove] intervenes with the House leadership to kill this proposal.

BTW, I think Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Minnesota will prove pivotal to the success or failure of the movement.

[longtermmemmory]

37 states have a defense of marriage act. Massachusetts(regardless of what the courts do) is on course to pass its own doma. 38 states would be required to adopt the constitutional ammendment.

the ammendment for those who have not seen is:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[AntiGuv]

There is 0% chance that Massachusetts will ratify the Federal Marriage Amendment with a majority vote in legislature. Putting an amendment to their State constitution before the voters requires only 25% of the legislators to vote in favor, and they've had a heck of a time rounding those up....

I'd stop looking at the DOMA states because most of those statutes were either already on the books before 1996 or placed there by ballot initiative. It's misleading and you cannot ratify a U.S. Constitution amendment by initiative.

[longtermmemmory]

odd, I say a news story that said Mass was going to pass a doma but not before the MassSC rules. This would create a window of homosexual marraiges.

The story said mass favored the DOMA. ?

[AntiGuv]

Either your understanding of the story or the story itself was incorrect. The amendment procedure in Massachusetts requires that a joint session of legislature approve the proposed amendment [with 25% vote] which then goes before the voters who have to approve in two consecutive general elections in order for the amendment to become law. None of that has happened yet.

It was blocked in the last joint session by parliamentary manuever on the part of Tom Birmingham [leader of the House or Senate, I forget which one].

[longtermmemmory]

I defer to you.

[ninenot]

As you may have heard, Rush led the program today musing about the 'possible necessity' of this Amendment.

Well--it'll get people talking. Nice play on his part. He could be serious about it, but what he's trying to impart is that the Supremes have gone utterly mad and lack only the foam-at-the-mouth to prove it.

[ninenot]

Actually, there's another way: States can simply ignore the "full Faith and Credit" clause and tell queer marriage-applicants to, ah, shove it.

Admittedly, getting spinal transfusions into State governments may be difficult.

[davidosborne]

H.J.RES.56
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] (introduced 5/21/2003) Cosponsors: 39
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

---

COSPONSORS(39), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2] Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3]
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1] Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26]
Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12] Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4] Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5] Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4]
Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8] Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2]
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52] Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6]
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5] Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3] Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6]
Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5] Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2]
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9] Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3] Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2]
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]
Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [LA-1] Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [TN-3]
Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [FL-15] Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [KY-1]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2]

[davidosborne]

CLICK HERE... to sign petition to SUPPORT HJ RES 56

[davidosborne]

MY RESPONSE TO THOSE FREEPERS WHO OPPOSE HJR 56...

First and foremost this is NOT petty... it is critical in this day and age that we RE-AFFIRM our MORAL foundation. I AGREE with those opponents who are concerned that the U.S. Constitution should not have to be this SPECIFIC, ....HOWEVER, our JUSTICE system has failed us miserably... by equating a union of two people of the same sex to MARIAGE....

this is a HUGE step in destroying the MORAL foundation of our laws.

I believe that by NOT passing this ammendment the effect will be exactly what some opponenets fear will occur if we DO pass it......

IMHO, it will encourage leftists to try to put their own crap into our laws using the judiciary, and taking advantage of its failure to ensure decisions are grounded in MORALITY........

This Ammendment will send the message LOUD AND CLEAR to our JUDICIARY that we WANT them to make decisions that are grounded in MORALITY and if they don't know what that is then WE THE PEOPLE will have to explain it to them in the CONSTITUTION!!!

[davidosborne]

H.J.RES.56 Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Sponsor:
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4]
(introduced 5/21/2003) Cosponsors: 95 Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(95), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order) Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [D-TX-4] Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [D-NC-7] Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [D-MN-7] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [R- VA-1] Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [R- LA-1] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [R- PA-16] Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [R- MD-6] Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [R- VA-5] Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [R- SC-2] Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [R- FL-15] Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [R- IN-6] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- OK-5] Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [R- NC-3] Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- KS-2] Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-3] Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [R- SC-4] Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [R- MO-2] Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [R- TX-26] Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [R- GA-9] Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [R- IA-5] Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [R- GA-6] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [R- IN-3] Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [R- MN-6] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [R- FL-1] Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [R- KY-2] Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [R- NC-8] Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [R- SC-3] Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-12] Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [R- GA-8] Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [R- AL-3] Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [R- TN-3] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [D-TX-17] Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [R- MI-2] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [R- TX-8] Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [R- KY-1] Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-52] Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [R- CA-4] Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [R- SC-1] Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [R- VA-7] Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11] Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [D-TN-4] Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-3] Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [R- MS-1] Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [D-MS-4] Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [R- CA-2] Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [R- OK-1] Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [R- NJ-5] Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [R- LA-3] Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [R- WY] Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-4] Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [R- NJ-4] Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [R- VA-2] Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-11] Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-5] Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [R- FL-6] Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [R- CA-50] Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [R- NM-2] Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [R- IL-6] Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [R- TX-6] Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [R- OH-8] Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [R- MN-1] Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [R- PA-5] Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [R- KS-4] Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [R- AZ-2] Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-31] Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [R- MO-8] Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [R- IN-2] Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [R- CA-46] Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [R- IL-8] Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [R- PA-9] Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [R- TX-32] Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [R- CO-7] Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-10] Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [R- NC-9] Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [R- PA-15] Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [R-TX-7] Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [R-IL-16] Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-NE-3] Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-FL-24] Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [D-KY-4] Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [R-PA-4] Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [R-NC-6] Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [R-CA-44] Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [R-OH-3] Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [R-GA-1] Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [R-AR-3] Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [R-VA-6] Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [D-LA-5] Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [R-CO-6] Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [R-AL-6] Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [R-MI-11] Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [R-KY-5] Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [R-AZ-6] Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [R-CA-42] Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [R-AL-4]

**** ACTION ALERT *****

**** If your Congresscritter is listed please call to THANK them..... if they are not please call/fax/write/email and ask them to please co-sponsor this bill...

Bush supports traditional marriage definition in issuing Marriage Protection proclamation

Congressional Directory

Link to - Bill Status HJR 56

David C. Osborne - Homepage