Skip to comments.
List of CO-Sponsors GROWING - Call YOUR Congressman.
H.J. Res 56 ^
| TODAY
| David C. Osborne
Posted on 07/11/2003 12:37:30 AM PDT by 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COSPONSORS(39), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2] Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3] Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6] Rep Brady, Kevin -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]
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; hjres56; homosexualagenda; marriageamendment; marriageammendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: JennieOsborne; /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...
pass it on.. SUPPORT HJ RES 56
2
posted on
07/11/2003 12:38:27 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: davidosborne
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`SECTION 1. 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.'.
END
3
posted on
07/11/2003 12:41:49 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: All
4
posted on
07/11/2003 12:42:34 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: davidosborne
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00056: JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`SECTION 1. 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.'.
END
5
posted on
07/11/2003 12:43:21 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: All
6
posted on
07/11/2003 12:45:36 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: All
7
posted on
07/11/2003 12:53:28 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: davidosborne
BTTT!!!!!!
8
posted on
07/11/2003 3:03:24 AM PDT
by
E.G.C.
To: davidosborne
BUMP for the Family!
9
posted on
07/11/2003 3:36:56 AM PDT
by
azhenfud
("for every government action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction")
To: davidosborne
Your pie chart demonstrates the effectiveness of the homosexual agenda in this country.
That 38% of the public would not understand the simple notion of marriage is telling.
That 26% would disagree that marriage is between a man and a woman is the evidence of the success of the propaganda of the left, primarily through television.
10
posted on
07/11/2003 4:44:03 AM PDT
by
happygrl
To: davidosborne
BTTT!
To: happygrl
The tail wagging the dog huh? Just like here. The homosexuals are an agressive, vocal and determined MINORITY. How is it they can get away with any of this? Fact is, this MINORITY has been getting away with their bribery right under the MAJORITY of peoples noses. Time to stand up and be counted. Let's not kid ourselves, accepting their "matrimonial status" is only the FIRST step in their agenda.
12
posted on
07/12/2003 1:06:06 PM PDT
by
Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
To: I got the rope
13
posted on
07/12/2003 2:05:02 PM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: I got the rope
14
posted on
07/12/2003 2:06:10 PM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: Canadian Outrage
what's the final step?
15
posted on
07/12/2003 5:48:06 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
To: TheAngryClam
I believe the final step will likely result in unfettered, unbridled hedonism which the Courts by this step have opened the door to. It may not be out of the question, that maurading (sp?) gangs of homosexuals will snatch and molest children from your local parks and recreation centres - sodomy laws now as we know, no longer exist. Homosexuals will apply for employment working with children in droves and this little matter on their resumes will not disqualify them from those positions. Truly it is the youngsters these people want their hands on. This may sound harsh, but if you have ever read anything by David Wilkerson, you will see that he prophesied all these things including how powerful this lobby has become. Besides, the bottom line is to completely re-define family and marriage.
16
posted on
07/12/2003 8:59:29 PM PDT
by
Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
To: Canadian Outrage
In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes. There is no King Jesus for many; thus, they do what is right in their own eyes.
17
posted on
07/12/2003 9:20:52 PM PDT
by
happygrl
(Iran Azad....until they are free, we are all "corrupt street women"!!!!!!)
To: happygrl
AMEN happygrl!!
18
posted on
07/12/2003 9:34:19 PM PDT
by
Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
To: happygrl
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
19
posted on
07/13/2003 5:17:39 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: davidosborne
My Rep. is already on there (Ron Lewis).
20
posted on
07/13/2003 7:56:30 AM PDT
by
Republican Wildcat
(Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson