Skip to comments.
H.J. RES 56 ** NOW HAS 86 Co-Sponsors ** !!
David C. Osborne ^
| Today
| David C. Osborne
Posted on 09/17/2003 4:37:30 AM PDT by davidosborne
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: JennieOsborne; /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...
pass it on..
2
posted on
09/17/2003 4:38:16 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: All
3
posted on
09/17/2003 4:39:17 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: All
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)
HJ 56 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 2003
Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
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.'.
4
posted on
09/17/2003 4:43:48 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: davidosborne
Good morning, David. How's it going?
5
posted on
09/17/2003 4:45:34 AM PDT
by
E.G.C.
To: All

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: 86 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] Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [R-TX-7] Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [R-IL-16] Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-NE-3] Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [R-FL-24] Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [D-KY-4] Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [R-PA-4] Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [R-NC-6] Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [R-CA-44] Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [R-OH-3] Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [R-GA-1] Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [R-AR-3]
6
posted on
09/17/2003 4:56:31 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: All
HJ RES 56 is currently pending in this committee.. if you would like to see this bill move forward please contact the following Reps in addition to your own rep.
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman (202) 225-2216 (202) 225-3012 (fax)
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King................ (202) 225-4426.... Fax: (202) 225-3193
Mr. Jerrold Nadler..... (202) 225-5635...
Mr. Jenkins............. (202) 225-6356..... Fax. (202) 225-5714
Mr. John Conyers...(202) 225-5126..... (202) 225-0072 Fax
Mr. Bachus..........202 225-4921....... 202 225-2082 fax
Mr. Robert Scott.. (202) 225-8351..... (202) 225-8354 Fax
Mr. Hostettler......(202) 225-4636...... FAX: (202) 225-3284
Mr. Melvin Watt.....(202) 225-1510.... Fax (202) 225-1512
Ms. Hart................202-225-2565........ Fx. 202-226-2274
Mr. Adam Schiff.......(202) 225-4176....... Facsimile: (202) 225-5828
Mr. Feeney........... (202) 225-2706...... fax:(202) 226-6299
Mr. Forbes........... 202-225-6365...... Fax: 202-226-1170
7
posted on
09/17/2003 4:58:33 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: E.G.C.
Hi,
I am glad to see more reps getting on board here.. I doubt this will ever pass.. however if we get the resolution to the floor it will become a NATIONAL debate and the so called "moderates" will have to take a position for or against morality.....
David
8
posted on
09/17/2003 5:02:03 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: davidosborne
bump bump bump
To: davidosborne
I don't know about this. The constitution is the framework that (should) define the limits of government and the acknowledgement of individual rights. Where does marriage fit in?
If you have an amendment that defines marriage, what's to stop opponents from calling a gay "marriage" a "civil union" to recieve the same benefits? Past examples of subversion are the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, "militia" in the Second amendment, the entire 10th amendment or the commerce clause. Why should this amendment be any different?
11
posted on
09/17/2003 8:12:09 AM PDT
by
rudypoot
(All the 9th circuit is missing is hoods and scythes because that's what they are to the constitution)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: Don Corleone
Who is your rep? Barney Frank?
13
posted on
09/17/2003 11:02:52 AM PDT
by
ConservativeMan55
(If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all!!!)
To: Xthe17th
Don't forget John McCain.
14
posted on
09/17/2003 11:03:28 AM PDT
by
ConservativeMan55
(If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all!!!)
To: rudypoot
I have problems too with amending the constitution with "social" amendments. WHile I agree that marriage is an act between a man and a woman, is this really a Federal Issue?
To: abigkahuna
I agree. While SS marriage is an absurdity I don't want to clutter up the constitution with amendments against absurdities.
16
posted on
09/17/2003 1:41:29 PM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
abigkahuna writes:
I have problems too with amending the constitution with "social" amendments. WHile I agree that marriage is an act between a man and a woman, is this really a Federal Issue? and justshutupandtakeit replies:
I agree. While SS marriage is an absurdity I don't want to clutter up the constitution with amendments against absurdities
John speaking:
Gentleman, you have one of only two possible choices.:
1. Pass a United States Constitutional Amendment that defines what marriage is, and forever preserve the traditional concept of marriage against assault by the courts.
2. Oppose the passage of such amendment, and end up with homosexual marriage in America as so declared by the United States Supreme Court.
It's one or the other. Which do you _really_ want?
Cheers!
- John
To: Fishrrman
I don't agree that those are the alternatives. There is no reason the USSC would uphold this absurdity. But it is a great reason to work hard to re-elect Bush and more Republicans in the Senate.
18
posted on
09/17/2003 2:06:32 PM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree. Bush must be destroyed.)
To: abigkahuna
"is this really a Federal Issue?"I don't think so either. I don't think the Constitution should be used in the culture war this way.
19
posted on
09/17/2003 2:07:17 PM PDT
by
rudypoot
(All the 9th circuit is missing is hoods and scythes because that's what they are to the constitution)
To: Fishrrman
The constitution is for preserving liberties and limiting the government. What next? A sodomy amendment? How about medical pot use amendment? Or how about The Condom Machines in Public High School amendment?
20
posted on
09/17/2003 2:16:31 PM PDT
by
rudypoot
(All the 9th circuit is missing is hoods and scythes because that's what they are to the constitution)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 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