|
|
US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 05/17/2004 8:51:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov
Write letters of support to all senators and representatives.
These members count the letters of support.
There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.
These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.
For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
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.
This is very doable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Dear [ Decision Maker ]
I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.
This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.
This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies the law which exists now.
This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures. The activist courts have made this a federal issue. There are no other options.
Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.
Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
Barney Frank busy? But...why only a few short months ago he said constitutionalizing gay sex was about privacy, not marriage. You mean he lied?
At least I have two great Senators. I pay for it, though, with a crappy governor, US Congressman, and state senator. Major YUCK!
> They may be poster boys but I bet most of those democrat
> party senators voted for the DMA in 1996.
(*sigh*) No such luck, with the illustrious Senator Feingold; he sent me a "constituent letter" which described(in essence) how he voted against the "needless, divisive, and discriminatory" DOMA.
202 224 3121 is the capitol switchboard
202 456 1111 is the White House
bttt
I have a bit of a problem with the wording... Marital status shall not be conferred on unmarried couples? That seems to technically mean that no new couple can get married. Are ammendments always written this confusingly?
bump!
I'm so sad to be part of a state that is individually threatening marriage across the country. I was married in Massachusetts only 7 months ago and now I am seen in the eyes of the law here as just as married as same-sex couples. I will never consider them married, but if Mass. is giving out licenses to people who can never truly be considered married, what does that say about mine?
Kerry is a flip flopper and has demonstrated he will say and do anything to get a vote. If enough pressure is brought on this issue he would vote for the amendment as a means of neutralizing it.
Thus calling all the democrats who may not support it is just if not MORE important than calling those who will support it.
I was married in Mass too.We're married,they are not!
No controlled scientific studies support this. Most scientific studies, including the twin studies indicate that many other 'evironmental' and social factors have an affect on what 'turns us on' sexually and what 'turns of off' sexually.
When is the last time you were aroused by your brother or sister? The turn off is not genetic, it is the result of thousands of years of social/cultural conditioning.
Imagine a scenerio where hundreds of ‘BLUE’ people started petstering the courts and the government for special ‘protections’ and defined themselves as a RACIAL group. Meanwhile, the opposition makes claims that either they spray painted themselves or were in an environment that contibuted to their ‘blueness,’ so they should not qualify for special identity....
Wouldn’t the government or the judges call in renowed scientists and genetic experts to testify? Wouldn’t we expect a rational legal and scientic inquiry prior to court or government ruling?
Why have we skipped from 1973 over the research stage and final scientic findings into government and judicial action? It is not up to ‘head shrinkers’ to determine genetic findings...it’s up to scientists. We as a civilized society have been duped by a swarm of deviants who have in every sense ‘painted them selves blue,’ and the courts have bought off on a lower or non-exhistant standard of evidence.
Genetic Homosexuality is a hoax.
Notice when the scientific studies have FAILED to find the GAY GENE in humans, the argument of Gays retreat into: I didn’t ask to be like this! Who would ask to be born this way!
They would of course. When is the last time you heard of cries to the Government from the homosexual community to “...fund research to find a cure for this terrible affliction we were born with!?”
Think about this: if homosexuality was genetic, what 'normal' gene imprint would have a person sexually turned on by another persons annus?
Sorry, the 'I-like-your-butt-hole' Gene is a myth. It's not there...
Well, I sent emails to kerry and kennedy and I am also going to send printed letters to them. I will do whatever I can to make an impact on them.
At least our license didn't say Applicant One and Applicant Two. How utterly ridiculous.
I have to say, Romney isn't impressing me with his "fight" against this. He does good lip service, but doesn't really stand up to anything. He may think he's playing good politics, but the left doesn't like him and he's pissing off the right. Good plan...
Then I wrote to Arlen Specter. Here is his reply:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to define marriage as only a union between a man and woman. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.I appreciate the goal of this amendment. In 1996, I joined my colleagues in passing H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. This Act, signed into law by President Clinton, federally defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The law also allows a state to refuse to honor a same-sex marriage performed in any other state.
Although I supported a statutory solution, amending the Constitution is a more serious step, and one we should never take lightly. This is a very difficult issue that requires careful consideration and thought. I will definitely keep your thoughts on this issue in mind should the Senate consider this or any other similar legislation. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at HYPERLINK "http://specter.senate.gov/"http://specter.senate.gov.
So I took him up and replied with the following:
Dear Senator Specter,I appreciate the gravity of amending the U.S. Constitution, but one is definately called for. If not an amendment to define marriage, then one to reign in the rogue Judiciary which is usurping the role of our Legislative branches.
I understand there is a Senate bill to amend the constitution. Senator Santorum has assured me that he is a sponsor of this bill. I urge you to become a cosponsor.
During the recent primary, you advertised that you wanted to keep your clout in Pennsylvania. If your clout can't be used to defend marriage, any other use we might have for it will not matter.
I then wrote to Senator Santorum and asked him to call in some chips owed him for the strong endorsement he gave to Senator Specter. I'll let you know what happens.
Don't hold your breath.
Shalom.
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.
