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

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

Let's get moving on this, people!
1 posted on 06/29/2003 8:56:49 PM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Antoninus
Oops. Screwed up the link above. It's here:


2 posted on 06/29/2003 8:58:02 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
I mean here (sorry!):

The Alliance for Marriage
3 posted on 06/29/2003 8:59:07 PM PDT by Antoninus (Preview is your friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus; NittanyLion
Here is one possible answer to the question you posed about minorities and marriage.
4 posted on 06/29/2003 8:59:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PhiKapMom
FYI
5 posted on 06/29/2003 9:01:17 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Click here for:

Alliance for Marriage


6 posted on 06/29/2003 9:01:31 PM PDT by steplock ( http://www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus; Brandonmark; Alex P. Keaton; MeeknMing; JohnHuang2; Dog Gone; Dog; isthisnickcool; ...
Thanks for posting this! We really do need to get on board this! Enough is enough!
7 posted on 06/29/2003 9:01:55 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Another thing that is needed is an ammendment allowing for the states to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions. I think that if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote to overturn a Supreme Court decision within two years of its being issued, that Supreme Court decesion should be null and void.
9 posted on 06/29/2003 9:03:39 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Go Al Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
It's a noble effort, but I have serious doubts it will succeed. I think enthusiasm for it will got the way support for a flag burning ammendment or the ERA did. A slow loss of momentum till it becomes non viable.
10 posted on 06/29/2003 9:06:23 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; ...
Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

Winston Churchill (The Gathering Storm, p348):

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

14 posted on 06/29/2003 9:13:05 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Don't count on it.

Bush and the Republicans also promised a Human Life Amendment, I'm still waiting...

http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm
35 posted on 06/29/2003 9:25:45 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Horray, bump bump and more bump.

This needs some traction. How do we get involved? Petitions?

36 posted on 06/29/2003 9:26:09 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
This is an issue for the states, not the feds. How can we take the stand that abortion, sodomy and such are state's right issues and then turn around and support this?
92 posted on 06/29/2003 10:31:35 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Are you familiar with Scott Lively? Here's a link (if I can do it right) to one of his websites:
http://www.defendthefamily.com/

Another good one with much info on homosexuality and links is this:
http://www.abidingtruth.com/
96 posted on 06/29/2003 10:57:18 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

If the polling data is accurate, no.
And it would be my personal desire to not have gays call their 'arrangements' marriage.

I'm VERY concerned with the idea that the Federal government should define and regulate marriage. Regulate is what they do, after all...

Ideally, the gays would back off and choose another name.

Depending on the wording, and given IRONCLAD assurances there would be no interpretations allowing for the expansion of government law, or the ability of the courts to make new law from the Amendment, (For example Federal conditions for a Federal marriage license - did you consider that?) then I might vote for it.

114 posted on 06/30/2003 12:50:29 AM PDT by DAnconia55 (Fundies are captive voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
"Anyone still think this is a losing issue?"

Yup. Constitutional ammendments aren't passed or ratified by polls or the people. They're passed and ratified by legislators. Therein lies the rub.
130 posted on 06/30/2003 9:58:09 AM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
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!!!

158 posted on 07/27/2003 7:54:26 AM PDT by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
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

159 posted on 10/10/2003 11:07:35 AM PDT by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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