Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marraige

6/30/03 | self

[Az Joe]

Probable vanity here.

What are the chances of this amendment Sen. Frist is talking about banning gay marraige really taking off and taken seriously?

How do we get started?

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Call your Senators and Reps, we need to get this going soon. MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT WILL RULE AGAINST US SOON.

[ambrose]

Let's start by abolishing **all** state sanctioned marriages, and all the entitlements that flow from it.

[Tall_Texan]

I personally think it stands very little chance of getting out of Congress, much less passing 38 state houses. The process for passing a constitutional amendment requires so many hands to okay it that it must be something almost uniformly accepted. I'm not sure even one Constitutional Amendment has been passed in my lifetime (I was born in 1957) so it is quite rare and the process is set up in order to make it quite rare.

With the media and the gaystapo against it, it's not going to have the 70%+ popular support it's going to need to go the distance. Instead, it will be a standard debating tool for politicians for the next 30 years like the Human Life Amendment was - something a lot of people talked about but few ever tried to enact.

[Camber-G]

Get Frist to introduce a federal ammendment (not just "support" some one else's ammendment, but start his own) to outlaw all homosexuality ! Not just gay marriage !

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Short term partial solution only.

Long term comprehensive solution - an amendment to make all Federal justices - including the USSC - face re-election every 2 years by every citizen residing in their jurisdiction. States like Texas do this up to the state supreme court level.

For decades now, I've heard the same lame excuse every time I complain about legislation from the bench - "Don't change the system. The system isn't bad. It's just the abuse of the system by some judges that is bad. Instead, just appoint judges who won't legislate."

Oh yeah? Well time rolls on, and decades after first hearing that excuse, the problem is still getting worse and that excuse is now wearing a little thin! I say it's time to recognize the sorry fact that large numbers of elitist federal judges with lifetime terms have been abusing the power given to them, and only 30 or 40 years of unbroken GOP control of the White House and 60% control of the Senate will make the problem less intolerable. And even such a one in a million scenario would not completely fix the problem - only lessen it. You only have to look at such notorious GOP appointees/disasters such as Souter and Stevens to figure that out.

Throw out the old system! Recognize that the judiciary - which people have for too long now fantasized as being "above politics" - is instead just as thoroughly politicized as any other branch of government. And as such, it should be directly controlled by the people just as the other branches are.

[Az Joe]

I think this will make it to the Supreme Court (gay maraige) in less than 5 years.

[Rudder]

A mere feel good effort by conservatives, the amendment will never get off the ground because most Americans really don't care.

[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: 75 Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(75), 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]

Congressional Directory

David C. Osborne

[Gumption]

Personally, I'll save my constitutional amendment support for limitations on govt. or possibly repealing other amendments, not this crap. Let states do what they want. Just win the argument and you can rest easy, no amendment necessary.

[davidosborne]

With all due respect I must disagree with you.. I am very reluctant to support constitutional ammendments for the same reasons you stated.. however the Judical activism going on this country regarding the definition of mariage is heartbreaking to say the least.. our foundation MUST be grounded in MORALITY and this issue strikes to the very heart of that foundation... if we fail to defend MORALITY in our constitution our foundation will become weak.

[Gumption]

I am very reluctant to support constitutional ammendments for the same reasons you stated.

You don't want to limit the federal govt? Ummmmm ... I don't know what to say.

[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!!!

[jpsb]

I totally agree, and was against the flag burning ammendment too. Leave the constitution alone. If you want to do some good start by repelling some admendments.

[davidosborne]

this is NOT about EXPANDING the constitution.... it IS about AFFIRMING its MORAL foundation... if we fail to do this we OPEN the doors for the JUDICIARY to decide what is MORAL and NOT - WE THE PEOPLE - IMHO the Judiciary HAD the opportunity to prevent this ammendment from becoming necessary and FAILED...

[jpsb]

Marriage is a religious sacarment, it is not the job of government to define it. Government should not be in the marrage business. Get rid of the progressive income tax and you get government out of the marriage business. Then you can get arried in your church and who cares if the sicko's in some sicko town get married in thier so called church. Just repell the 16th admentment and the whole problem goes away.

[davidosborne]

Your approach is very idealistic, and I have to disagree with you on the governments role in defining marriage.. marriage is a CONTRACT just like any other in this country, and if we open the door to allow a state to recognize a LEGAL marriage contract between two people of the same sex we cause the moral foundation of our constitution to weaken.. I am for a STRONG constitution... and this ammendement will prevent the liberals from weakening it..

[Kevin Curry]

Marriage is a religious sacarment, it is not the job of government to define it.

It is much, much more than a religious sacrament. It is the foundation of stable, traditional families that in turn support the entire edifice of this nation.

The government seeks to provide protection and incentives for the traditional family, without which this nation would collapse utterly within one generation. Many posters at FR who parrot your meaningless mind drivel get their ideas from the vicious, traditional family-hating atheist Ayn Rand. They have never thought through the implications of destroying the traditional family. It just cramps their hedonistic libertarian style so they spew.

But the protection can only be effective if the traditional family is maintained. Allow so-called gay marriage to dilute the mix (along with welfare state perverse incentives that reward unmarried single mothers) and government's involvement becomes more destructive than protective.

[jpsb]

I see marriage as a sacrament not a contract. But I can understand, with the high devorce rate that government might need to get involved at devorce time. So yea, government does have a small role to play. I will grant you that. But the small role does not rise to the level of admended the constitution. Let State governments or congress handle it. Mean while repeal the 16th, and nobody will care who lives with who.

[jpsb]

"posters at FR who parrot your meaningless mind drivel "

Realize unlike you, that this marriage thing is a symtom not the cause. The real problem is the progressive income tax and all the other government mandated crap that treats sinlge people diferently then married people. Treat the diease not the symtoms.