Where do your Senator's stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[Trinity]

Where Do Your Senators Stand on FMA?

As of Wednesday, July 7, 2004 this is where the current U.S. Senators stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment, S. J. Res. 30 .

SENATE POSITIONS ON THE FMA
7/07/04

OPPOSED


MAX BAUCUS — D-Mont.
JOSEPH BIDEN — D-Del.
JEFF BINGAMAN — D-N.M.
BARBARA BOXER — D-Calif.
JOHN BREAUX — D-La.
MARIA CANTWELL — D-Wash.
THOMAS CARPER — D-Del.
LINCOLN CHAFEE — R-R.I.
HILLARY CLINTON — D-N.Y.
SUSAN COLLINS — R-Maine
KENT CONRAD — D-N.D.
JOHN CORZINE — D-N.J.
TOM DASCHLE — D-S.D.
MARK DAYTON — D-Minn.
CHRISTOPHER DODD — D-Conn.
RICHARD DURBIN — D-Ill.
JOHN EDWARDS — D-N.C.
RUSS FEINGOLD — D-Wis.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN — D-Calif.
BOB GRAHAM — D-Fla.
CHUCK HAGEL — R-Neb.
TOM HARKIN — D-Iowa
JAMES JEFFORDS — I-Vt.
TIM JOHNSON — D-S.D.
EDWARD KENNEDY — D-Mass.
JOHN KERRY — D-Mass.
MARY LANDRIEU — D-La.
FRANK LAUTENBERG — D-N.J.
PATRICK LEAHY — D-Vt.
CARL LEVIN — D-Mich.
JOE LIEBERMAN — D-Conn.
BLANCHE LINCOLN — D-Ark.
BARBARA MIKULSKI — D-Md.
PATTY MURRAY — D-Wash.
BEN NELSON — D-Neb.
BILL NELSON — D-Fla.
MARK PRYOR — D-Ark.
JACK REED — D-R.I.
HARRY REID — D-Nev.
PAUL SARBANES — D-Md.
CHARLES SCHUMER — D-N.Y.
OLYMPIA SNOWE — R-Maine
ARLEN SPECTER — R-Pa.
DEBBIE STABENOW — D-Mich.
RON WYDEN — D-Ore.

UNDECIDED


DANIEL AKAKA — D-Hawaii
EVAN BAYH — D-Ind.
ROBERT BENNETT — R-Utah
ROBERT BYRD — D-W. Va.
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL — R-Colo.
MIKE DEWINE — R-Ohio
BYRON DORGAN — D-N.D.
JUDD GREGG — R-N.H.
ERNEST HOLLINGS — D-S.C.
DANIEL INOUYE — D-Hawaii
HERB KOHL — D-Wis.
RICHARD LUGAR — R-Ind.
JOHN MC CAIN — R-Ariz.
LISA MURKOWSKI — R-Alaska
JOHN ROCKEFELLER — D-W. Va.
JOHN SUNUNU — R-N.H.
CRAIG THOMAS — R-Wyom.
GEORGE VOINOVICH — R-Ohio
JOHN WARNER — R-Va.



IN FAVOR


LAMAR ALEXANDER — R-Tenn.
WAYNE ALLARD — R-Colo.
GEORGE ALLEN — R-Va.
KIT BOND — R-Mo.
SAM BROWNBACK — R-Kan.
JIM BUNNING — R-Ky.
CONRAD BURNS — R-Mont.
SAXBY CHAMBLISS — R-Ga.
THAD COCHRAN — R-Miss.
NORM COLEMAN — R-Minn.
JOHN CORNYN — R-Texas
LARRY CRAIG — R-Idaho
MIKE CRAPO — R-Idaho
ELIZABETH DOLE — R, N.C.
PETE DOMENICI — R-N.M.
JOHN ENSIGN — R-Nev.
MICHAEL ENZI — R-Wyo.
PETER FITZGERALD — R-Ill.
BILL FRIST — R-Tenn.
LINDSAY GRAHAM — R-S.C.
CHUCK GRASSLEY — R-Iowa
ORRIN HATCH — R-Utah
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON — R-Texas
JAMES INHOFE — R-Okla.
JON KYL — R-Ariz.
TRENT LOTT — R-Miss.
MITCH MCCONNELL — R-Ky.
ZELL MILLER — D-Ga.
DON NICKLES — R-Okla.
PAT ROBERTS — R-Kan.
RICK SANTORUM — R-Pa.
JEFF SESSIONS — R-Ala.
RICHARD SHELBY — R-Ala.
GORDON SMITH — R-Ore.
TED STEVENS — R-Alaska
JAMES TALENT — R-Mo.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032482.cfm


Write or call your undecided Senators and make them take a stand for this issue! They will be voting on it soon!

 

[NewGuy]

The Constitution is a place for balancing power, not dictating behavior of citizens.

Anyone voting in favor should be impeached.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If the constitution is amended for this, rest assured that it will just make it easier down the line to change it for something else a political party in power doesn't like. Soon we'll have amendments citing anti-war and anti-president remarks as treason and possibly even against flag burning.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The Constitution is a place for balancing power, not dictating behavior of citizens.

Anyone voting in favor should be impeached.

Agreed. That is what the laws are for. If a law cannot be enacted which is FULLY supported AND authorized by the Constitution, then it should not become law.

 

[NewGuy]

Do you realize HGROKIT, NewGuy and DKSuddeth all AGREE?!?!!?

We need to mark the history books.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Do you realize HGROKIT, NewGuy and DKSuddeth all AGREE?!?!!?

We need to mark the history books.

 

[5stringJeff]

Well then I'll just ruin your whole little group hug.

SUPPORT THE FMA!!!

WOO-HOO!!!!!!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Well then I'll just ruin your whole little group hug.

SUPPORT THE FMA!!!

WOO-HOO!!!!!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

when does the FSA get started? FSA=Family Size Amendment.

we're overpopulated and there are too many kids going without. We should start limiting families to two boys and one girl. Any extras MUST be put up for adoption so people who do not have the quota of two boys and one girl can then be compliant with the FSA.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
when does the FSA get started? FSA=Family Size Amendment.

we're overpopulated and there are too many kids going without. We should start limiting families to two boys and one girl. Any extras MUST be put up for adoption so people who do not have the quota of two boys and one girl can then be compliant with the FSA.

No, in that case then - abortion would be the only viable option. They shoot horses don't they?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
No, in that case then - abortion would be the only viable option. They shoot horses don't they?

we have to get glue somewhere, right?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
we have to get glue somewhere, right?

Right! and then the whole stem cell debate would be moot too! I mean with all the aborted fetus', there is bound to be an abyndance of stem cells around, right?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Right! and then the whole stem cell debate would be moot too! I mean with all the aborted fetus', there is bound to be an abyndance of stem cells around, right?

and with the right capital, genetic research will be done so that the FSA could be assured by singling out chromosomes from the stem cells.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and with the right capital, genetic research will be done so that the FSA could be assured by singling out chromosomes from the stem cells.

utopia!

 

[Trinity]

Our United States Constitution is going to be changed one way or the other. Either a small handful of unaccountable, activist judges are going to write a radical new definition of marriage into the Constitution, or, the American people can protect marriage constitutionally through the option the founding fathers provided via the amendment process.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by khafley
Our United States Constitution is going to be changed one way or the other. Either a small handful of unaccountable, activist judges are going to write a radical new definition of marriage into the Constitution, or, the American people can protect marriage constitutionally through the option the founding fathers provided via the amendment process.

Judges can't write squat into the constitution.

 

[nycflasher]

Well, I'm between NY and CT. Registered in CT right now.

CT-Dodd/Lieberman-opposed
NY-Schumer/Clinton-opposed

And that's fine with me.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Well, I'm between NY and CT. Registered in CT right now.

CT-Dodd/Lieberman-opposed
NY-Schumer/Clinton-opposed

And that's fine with me.

uh Flash? uh - I think you are not in Kansas anymore. WRONG THREAD.

 

[Trinity]

The Government-Through Judges-Now Controls the Constitution


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/judges.htm

By Thomas L. Jipping
CNS The Free Congress Commentary
28 June, 2000

The Supreme Court has continued its scorched-earth policy of removing any public religious expression from our culture. On June 19, the Court voted 6-3 that a public school even allowing a student the opportunity to pray publicly at a school event is an "establishment of religion."

The Court long ago abandoned using the real Constitution in deciding such cases. The First Amendment, as you know, prohibits the federal government from passing any laws involving an establishment of religion. This means the federal government may not interfere with how the states deal with religion and may not itself create an establishment of religion. That's all.

While the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing religion, the Supreme Court now prohibits a local school district from even allowing students to offer a statement that might or might not be a prayer before a football game. How did we get to this point?

A majority of the Court now believes that they determine what the Constitution means. For 150 years, Justices believed that those who wrote the Constitution determined what it means. All the Justices did was uncover that meaning, apply it to the facts of a case, and announce the result. This approach kept the Constitution stable, and allowed it to limit and shape what government could do. The Constitution was law that governed government.

In the 1930s, Americans had a decision to make. The real Constitution, the one with meaning provided by those who wrote it, limited the federal government's power to regulate the economy. The Great Depression, however, created a national economic crisis and President Roosevelt promised a national economic response. Hence the choice between what the Constitution allowed government to do and what a growing number of Americans wanted government to do.

Roosevelt's choice was to get control of the economy by getting control of the Constitution. He appointed Justices who believed they, and not the authors of the Constitution, could determine what the document means. That switch in strategy turned everything upside down. The Constitution no longer controlled the government; the government, through judges, controlled the Constitution.

Once the rope connecting the Constitution to its authors was cut, the balloon was free to drift wherever the political winds would take it. Judges who could remove restraints on the federal government's economic power by wiggling a few words would certainly have no trouble with the First Amendment's religion clauses. Yes, the First Amendment says that it only applies to the federal government; judges simply found another amendment that applies other things to the states and said
it incorporates the First Amendment. Yes, the First Amendment only prohibits an establishment of religion; judges simply said that an endorsement of religion is an establishment of religion.

If the meaning of the Constitution is determined by the political winds of the day, you know what direction it will take today. That's why the Supreme Court first banned religious activities or expression which the government directs, went on to ban those activities or expression in which the government participates, and now has banned activities or expression which the government merely allows.

If judges can make up the Constitution, then judges run the country. If judges make up the Constitution, their values define our culture. If judges make up the Constitution, then we have only the rights they grant us. If judges make up the Constitution, we have no freedom.

Tom Jipping is the director of the Center for Law and Democracy at the
Free Congress Foundation.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
uh Flash? uh - I think you are not in Kansas anymore. WRONG THREAD.

You sure, HGROKIT?
Damn it, I wanna divorce! Or at least a trial seperation.