Americans must preserve institution of marriage (Sen. Rick Santorum)

USAToday ^ | Rick Santorum

[longtermmemmory]

I went school with his daughter. Sencey's a good egg.
***** **

Amazing, FR really does prove the 8 degrees of separation.


Do you have any news on the FMA, the only news lately has been on homosexual groups gearing up to fight the FMA or any defense of marriage as an insitution. There is also talk on mobilizing emergency court actions across state lines once Mass adopts homosexual marriage on full faith and credit grounds. (this is from some courthouse chatter among left leaning lawyers. Fly clients to mass. then file suit in homestate court before the ink is dry on "marriage" lic.)

[longtermmemmory]

the guards in FL tell the prisoners to wear sandals or flip flops in the showers. (ewww)

Conjugal visits are not necessarily a bad thing.

[longtermmemmory]

oops posted on wrong thread sorry...

[longtermmemmory]

never mind.

[longtermmemmory]

what did you expect?

[Clint N. Suhks]

There is also talk on mobilizing emergency court actions across state lines once Mass adopts homosexual marriage on full faith and credit grounds.

Amazing that full faith and credit will force the issue, the founding fathers never had the foresight for that. No, I don’t know what’s going on with FMA, last I heard it was dead.

[Imagine]

Your responses to my list (my response in parentheses)

1) Heterosexual's perform many of the same acts...
(gerbles in your rectum?)

2) Who's say's they are more suicidal
(documented)

3) will concede that point, although I don't have #s to refute it.
(documented)

4) The VAST majority of child molesters are.......
(male homosexuals molest male children at a far greater RATE per capita than hetrosexuals molest female children)

5) degrading sexual promiscuity? Have you ever been to a frat party or visited an overseas port when the Navy is in town?!?!
(I agree that hetros can be decadent, but, virtually all homosexuals are decadent, while decadent hetros are not the majority -- nonetheless, hetrosexual decadence (e.g. "wild on" "girls gone crazy," etc. IS a problem sign of the times.)

6) They can only 'indoctrinate' YOUR children if you don't take an active parenting role............
(utter nonesense, next to anti-american, anti-white, anti-capitalism propoganda, the public school's reason for being is to convert children to homosexuality)

7) Like to believe I view everything through a heavily biased heterosexual mindset.
(yes)

BTW, you can change your homosexual lifestyle. You are NOT genetically disposed to homosexuality, you can change but you must want that change to take place.
Regards

[longtermmemmory]

Last I heard it was still around based on the http://house.gov:

this the link to the house document: http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/word/Musgrave7703.DOC
(I could not get the source code so as to post in format.)

part II post follows


Federal Marriage Amendment – H.J. Res. 56
108th Original Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN),
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), Rep. David Vitter (R-LA)

Other 108th Co-Sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives:
Todd W. Akin
Roscoe G. Bartlett
Michael C. Burgess
Max Burns
Mac Collins
Jim DeMint
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
Johnny Isakson
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.
Sam Johnson
Walter B. Jones, Jr.
Mark R. Kennedy
Steve King
Ron Lewis
Jeff Miller
Charlie Norwood
Mike Pence
Joseph R. Pitts
Mike Rogers (AL-03)
Jim Ryun
Mark E. Souder
Dave Weldon
Joe Wilson
Zach Wamp

Amendment Text:
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.

Overview of Legal Impact of the Amendment:
The first sentence states that marriage in the U.S. consists of the union of a man and a woman. The second sentence ensures that the democratic process at the state level will decide the allocation of the benefits and privileges traditionally associated with marriage. State legislatures retain their existing authority to legislate in the area of marital benefits. But state and federal courts are precluded from distorting constitutional or statutory law into a requirement that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be reallocated pursuant to a judicial decree.




Redefinition
Of Marriage
Quasi Marital Schemes:
“Civil Unions”
“Domestic Partnerships”
Benefits Traditionally Associated With Marriage
Employee Benefits Offered by Private Businesses

Imposed By Courts
(State or Federal)
Sentence 1
Prohibits
Sentence 2
Prohibits
Sentence 2
Prohibits
Unaffected

Action of State Legislature
Sentence 1
Prohibits
Decision of State Legislature
Decision of State Legislature
Unaffected

Destruction of the Legal Status of Marriage is Pending in Courts:

The Federal Marriage Amendment is an urgently needed response to the pending judicial destruction of the legal status of marriage in America. Most legal experts predict that a case now pending before the Massachusetts state Supreme Court will destroy marriage as the union of a man and a woman. At that point, lawsuits will be filed in every state to force this destructive social revolution upon the entire nation. Since over 70% of Americans believe marriage is uniquely the union of a man and woman, the American people have consistently voted to defend marriage in both Hawaii and Alaska.

Existing Legal Protections Are Insufficient:

1. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cannot prevent activist groups from undermining marriage laws through lawsuits brought in state court in states such as Vermont and Massachusetts. These state lawsuits will lay the foundation for additional lawsuits around the country. For example, over 80% of Vermont so-called “civil unions” involve out-of-state residents -- from every state in the nation -- who will file lawsuits to undermine marriage in their respective states. A similar pattern can be expected to apply in Massachusetts.

2. State marriage laws and DOMA are not likely to survive if challenged in court. Although the courts may uphold the federal DOMA as it applies to federal law, they will almost certainly invalidate the section of DOMA that attempts to bar interstate transmission of same-sex “marriages.” Under the established doctrine of judicial supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation, this section of DOMA will be viewed as an unconstitutional effort to base an Act of Congress upon a purportedly authoritative interpretation of a constitutional text (the Full Faith and Credit Clause).

[longtermmemmory]

Part II of 68:

Status of bill. On June 25, 2003 Bill was sent to
subcommittee as part of Amendment process.

---

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT STATUS

---

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: 32
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

---

STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)

5/21/2003:

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

6/25/2003:

Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

[Clint N. Suhks]

OK how'd you do that? Analogman was banned way before you posted.

[Imagine]

Aw darn it. I was hoping to hear his response.

(especially about the gerbels)

[davidosborne]

we are in for an UPHILL battle on this HJ Res 56.. I am committed to getting the word out and trying to get this passed and settle this troubling moral question.. I NEVER thought I would be advocating a U.S. Constitutional Ammendment, and would normally be opposed to doing so.. I have made an exception in this case becuase the Supreme Court failed in it's duty to uphold the "moral intent" of the Constitution itself.. so now "WE THE PEOPLE" must make it very clear to the Supreme Court that we still demand that the foundation of our Nation's SUPREME LAW is grounded in MORALITY...

David C. Osborne