[Old Sarge]

YES!

[Batrachian]

I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it. Not even they could be so self-destructively stupid.

[Leatherneck_MT]

""The U.S. Constitution is no place to play election-year politics, particularly when our nation is facing other critical issues such as an uncertain economy, threats to our homeland, the safety of our troops in Iraq and skyrocketing health care costs," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch in a press release."

Of which these peter puffers care nothing.

[firewalk]

bttt

[Mo1]

WOW .. that was fast .. wasn't sure they would try it

[Lunatic Fringe]

OK, it will never happen.

Constitutional amendments are next to impossible to pass, and I suspect strong opposition to this will make cowards of most state legislatures.

[Agitate]

Please write your congressman about this if you haven't already!

Congress.org makes it easy:

[GirlShortstop]

Three Republicans introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday....<snip> Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment along with co-sponsors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Where's Rick Santorum?

[tortoise]

Bloody hell, don't these people have something better to do? Beside wasting our tax dollars on entitlements, that is.

[John Lenin]

good move bump

[Michael.SF.]

a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the institution of marriage from courts that go beyond their constitutional mandates.

Ok, I know I am going to catch hell for this, but I believe that this is in fact overstepping the authority of the government.

Each Church should decide if they want to allow marriages of couples of the same sex. That is not the responsibility of the government.

Then, the laws should be re-written in such a way that there is no reward or penalty to people who are either married or not married.

The government should not be encroaching upon the rights of individuals to live as they choose. (Yes, I know, they do that a lot anyway. And when they do, it is also wrong).

Yes, I also know that marriages do not require a church or Church representative to perform them in order to be valid. Maybe that is where the answer lies:

Marriage = Holy Matrimony = Church blessed

License of Domestic Partnership = non Marriage = non church = same legal protections.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

107 co sponsors in the house.

None of whcih come from the infamous North East.

---

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT COSPONSORS

---

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: 107
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

---

COSPONSORS(107), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [AL-4]	Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2]
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [LA-5]	Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [AL-6]
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 11/20/2003 [LA-6]	Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [NC-10]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3]	Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [TX-6]	Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [CO-7]
Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [OH-8]	Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [AR-3]
Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]	Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1]
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 11/21/2003 [FL-5]	Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26]
Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12]	Rep Burton, Dan - 11/20/2003 [IN-5]
Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [CA-44]	Rep Cannon, Chris - 11/21/2003 [UT-3]
Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7]	Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [TX-31]
Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [IN-2]	Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8]	Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [IL-8]
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [WY]	Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [TX-7]
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [CA-50]	Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [TN-4]	Rep Deal, Nathan - 11/20/2003 [GA-10]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4]	Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4]
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [MO-8]	Rep Everett, Terry - 11/20/2003 [AL-2]
Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [FL-24]	Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [AZ-6]
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [VA-4]	Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [AZ-2]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [NJ-5]	Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5]	Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [VA-6]
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [MN-1]	Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4]
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [PA-4]	Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8]
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [AZ-5]	Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [CA-2]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2]	Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 11/21/2003 [MO-9]
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52]	Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [IL-6]
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6]	Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5]
Rep Janklow, William J. - 11/20/2003 [SD]	Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3]	Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [FL-8]
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6]	Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [GA-1]	Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2]
Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [KY-4]	Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [IL-16]
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [MI-11]	Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7]
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [CA-42]	Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [NC-9]	Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 11/20/2003 [TX-19]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9]	Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [NE-3]
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [NM-2]	Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7]	Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [PA-5]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [MS-3]	Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [CA-11]	Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [KY-5]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3]	Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [CA-46]
Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2]	Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [VA-2]
Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [TX-32]	Rep Shadegg, John B. - 11/20/2003 [AZ-3]
Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [PA-9]	Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [NJ-4]
Rep Smith, Lamar - 11/21/2003 [TX-21]	Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3]
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [FL-6]	Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]
Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [OK-1]	Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [CO-6]
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [LA-3]	Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [MS-4]
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [KS-4]	Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [PA-15]
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [OH-3]	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 Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [MS-1]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2]

[Looking for Diogenes]

The proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Where does the word "lifetime" fit into that definition? Oh, I guess this is the defense of divorce amendment.

[Iron-sight Sniper]

"The Constitution should only be used to expand individual rights, not to single out a group of Americans for discrimination, Birch added"

Is that why gays are so anti- second amendment?

[A. Pole]

The proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Good. Also it should say "and who are not immediate blood relatives".

[A. Pole]

The Constitution should only be used to expand individual rights, not to single out a group of Americans for discrimination, Birch added.

Homosexuals can marry the person of the opposite sex. Same way as everyone else. They demand an additional right.

[potlatch]

Let's pray this passes!

[Gone_Postal]

"Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society,"

Ahem to that

[squarebarb]

What everybody is ignoring is the dignity and advantage one-man one-woman marriage confers on women. And if it is to women's advantage, then it is to children's advantage. I can't but wonder why women are not onto this issue --- downgrading marriage to a legal union of two narcissistic homosexuals will hurt women terribly. It would make us seem like second-class drudges --- which is how feminists see homemakers --- instead of we really are; Head Princesses Of The Castle. Women depend on marriage to raise their children and civilize men into fatherhood and responsibility. Call the Household Guards, right now, I mean it.

Women and children hardest hit.

[concerned about politics]

"Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage.

He's right. Homosexuals are the victims of their own vile fetish, and could seek help easily. The rest of us should be able to live in peace without them trying to force us to consider them or accept them "normal." They're not.
I'd easily vote yes for this ammendment in clean conscience, and recommend doing the same to others..