You did not even open the link did you:
Representative Marilyn Musgrave introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 56, stating: ??Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and 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.??
What else to you ignore and state as true ?
So, you hide behind the first, deny others the use of it and want to gut the second.
What's your favorite sauce? Anyone who tries to destroy the US from within is a traitor, and needs to be dealt with swiftly, and permanently.
constitution:
Fine tune that statement a bit... "marriage" is a religious rite... also a _property_ rite, instituted by ancient kings and princes to ensure proper inheritance of property _and_ authority.
"marriage", under civil law, is a tax benefit. It should be re-titled as "partnership" benefit.
Though the gays would not have that... they need to rub our noses in the ground at every opportunity. ...Jim Thompson
"Oregon voters decided to approve Measure 36 which amends the state constitution to define the state's civil marriages in a manner consistent with _some_ religious definitions of marriage (but not others). Is this a good idea? Of course not - but those who think that the state has the authority to promote or protect their religion think otherwise. "
Why is this news ???
An Idiot quoting an idiot.
It isn't news, unless you're still living in 2004.
The text of the referendum, which the idiot conveniently leaves out, is
"Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage. [Created through initiative petition filed March 2, 2004, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 2004]
There are no 'religious' words.
Btw, there is no such thing as "gay marriage." It's an oxymoron.
mean.
??
constitution:
Change your tuning. Marriage predates recorded history and I defy you to determine a 'religion' was involved.
OK, then why are the religious zealots so determined to pass make "marriage" only for "one man and one woman" ?
Why is it so important to them to "keep" marriage a sacrament in their own image ?
I read it, not that I needed to. He "introduced" a bill asking Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment.
It is NOT "an amendment to the constitution," as you fallaciously claimed, because it never passed either the House or Senate, both of which are needed to 'propose' one, much less garner ratification by
3/4 of the States since it was never 'proposed' to the States. In fact, it never even made it out of committee, the proceedings of which is what you linked to.There is also nothing 'religious' about it.
Nothing. On top of that I can read and comprehend words like "introduced," a document title like "HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE," and know what the Amendment process is.
I'm sorry, Michael, but it doesn't matter what he does. The First is inviolate.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Speech may be offensive but it is not war.
False choice question and false characterization.
The simple fact of the matter is people are only asking that the left stop trying to redefine words that have been around for 2,000 years, and that's just the Latin derivative.
mean.
??
constitution:
Awwwwwh! Come on, Flipper... "coupling" existed before humans could speak. ...Jim Thompson
mean.
??
constitution:
Precisely
Yet he wants to deny that right to others.
So, trying to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America isn't an act of war?
the
What class of mega-idiot are you? Introducing a proposed amendment is no where near an actual approved amendment. It does not even seem to have gotten out of committee. Try learning the process.
?-/
amend
Exactly i am not fonda "Hanoi Jane".
I understand you being upset but you don't protect principle by abandoning principle.
Not words, debate, and vote.
Oh, lordy. It not being a 'declared' war just might be the only thing that saved her ass. That and it being a cute ass.
try
The left doesn't believe in doing it according to the law of the land. Executive orders, lies & innuendo prevail.
What short of military action could cause the constutuion to cease to be?
Sigh. Not all attacks are done openly, by armed troops. I suppose you never heard about the 'Cold War'? Those tactics have destroyed more than one country.
At the very least learn to spell CONSTITUTION properly.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required