The push for a federal marriage amendment has begun once again. Since May 22, when H.J.RES. 89 (titled "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage") was introduced, 66 U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored it.
To bring it to a vote, we will likely need more than that.
A blog has been set up by a member of the F3 Coalition specifically to address this issue. There, you can find information about the bill, who has signed it, links to articles explaining why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment, and other resources.
Visit it here: 2008 Federal Marriage Amendment.
If you've been a reader of my blog, you know how important this issue is to me. At some point in the future, I'd like to explain my position further. For now, all I will say is what you can you do:
1.) Contact your representative: If your representative has already co-sponsored the bill, thank him/her for doing so. If your representative has not co-sponsored the bill as of yet, contact him/her and urge him/her to do so. (Some of the resources on the FMA blog will help you make your case.)
2.) Get others to contact their representatives: You are one voice to a representative. But you can have the impact of numerous voices, if you can get others to contact their representatives.
3.) Blog about it: The mainstream media will probably ignore this for the most part, either because they want it to die or because they simply care more about other news stories--like the presidential election. Grassroots efforts are essential for this bill to gain steam.
4.) Pray: Is an explanation really needed here?
The chances of getting the required 2/3 majority are probably pretty slim. Last time around, in 2006, pro-family advocates came up 47 short of the necessary tally. However, we must try, try again, using the current demonstration in California of our failure as motivation to push this through with urgency.
Please note: No presumptuous comments accusing me of religious bigotry and hatred will be posted. Those are just so boring and intellectually dull.
Alasan Bermain Judi Kasino Online
-
Perekonomian agen bola terpercaya dunia tidak berjalan dengan baik. Biaya
hidup semakin tinggi setiap harinya. Oleh karena itu, setiap individu[...]
7 years ago
8 comments:
Have you looked at your poll results lately?
Why do you care so much about such a trivial subject?
"Please note: No presumptuous comments accusing me of religious bigotry and hatred will be posted. Those are just so boring and intellectually dull."
Presumptuous, n, unwarrantedly or impertinently bold; forward.
I would say the accusation is not unwarranted, therefore not presumptuous. Feel free to delete this anyway. Like all the others, apparently.
Can someone please reconcile how people complain about the nanny state that the liberals want and then insist that we need a constitutional amendment to protect marriage? Isn't that just more unnecessary big government?
John,
Are you insinuating that poll numbers determine how important a subject is? Or that poll numbers should determine what position to take on an issue?
I have to give somebody credit: I have never had a poll lean the slightest way liberal, yet somehow, this poll is overwhelmingly liberal. Whether somebody rallied a group of people on their blog or whether somebody hacked the poll, it doesn't matter. The polls are just for fun--not to determine what I care about.
The only way the accusation of bigotry would not be presumptuous is if you think that one would have to be bigoted in order to disagree with you politically (and, quite frankly, religiously) on this issue.
It's quite a common and easy tactic in the public arena. Simply paint the pro-family, pro-morality crowd as "hateful and bigoted," and no one will want to be a part of that political movement. But it's merely emotionally inflammatory language, and has no backing to it.
By the way, I have rarely deleted or refused to post a comment (for instance, I deleted one that called me "F***** Christian scum") in the past. I merely put that disclaimer at the bottom because the usual course of events. We go 'round and 'round, and then the accuser leaves, and nothing's been accomplished.
Yes, I violated what I said in the post. I did post your comment. I didn't mean to word that prohibition so concretely.
Anonymous,
I guess it depends on what you deem as unnecessary.
I have considered whether states' rights is the best way to go on this issue. But now, because of one activist court, the institution of marriage is being desecrated in California and causing ripples throughout the country.
I think this is necessary.
Dei says:
First, marriage is not a civil right. It was created by God and is defined as the union of one man and one woman. I'd far rather keep the government out of it. But since gays and lesbians have taken marriage to court, we need a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would be great to leave it to the states, but then you have the issue of whether states will recognize unions from other states, not to mention activist judges who think they are empowered to write law. DOMA isn't doing the job.
Simply paint the pro-family, pro-morality crowd as "hateful and bigoted,"
Such a self-serving characterization does seem to imply considerable bigotry in the way it discounts others who favor families and are moral but don't share your rather constricted notion of such things. It's funny, in a hypocritical way, that you talk about other people's opinions of you as "political propaganda" when you wield that bludgeon so unsubtly.
So my political opponents should be allowed to define me? Is that what you are trying to say? So the pro-homosexual is allowed to define himself/herself as a warrior for freedom and rights and equality, but I have to allow myself to be branded BY him/her as a bigot and hater?
Something smells unfair about that.
Post a Comment