that marriage ammendment thing
Jul. 18th, 2004 02:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rktand this is why i have oh, so many email accounts.
i cannot (ok, i don't want to) believe that the damn thing got so many votes in the first place.
red emphasis are mine. all other emphasis as is from original email.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on Federal Marriage Amendment
Take Action Now
07/14/2004
Senate Roll Call No. 155
108th Congress, 2nd Session
Rejected: 48-50 (see complete tally)
On a 50-48 vote, the U.S. Senate has failed to overcome a Democratic filibuster* and force a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The "cloture vote," as it is called, required 60 votes to bring debate to a close. Senators who support traditional marriage voted FOR cloture, while senators who support homosexual "marriage" voted AGAINST cloture.See below to see how your Senators voted and let them hear for you.
I urge you, do not be discouraged! This is only the beginning of a long fight for the very foundation of Western Civilization. One of the primary purposes of this vote is to make public the position of each Senator. There is a general feeling that some Senators will have to be voted out of office before the FMA can pass. Those senators up for re-election who showed support for same-sex marriage should be held accountable in November's election.
TAKE ACTION
Select your state from the drop-down above to send your Senators an email about the vote.
I am committed for the long haul. I hope that you are also. Too much is riding on the outcome.
Please forward this email and help us to grow the involvement.
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
also seen at: http://capwiz.com/afanet/issues/votes/?votenum=155&chamber=S&congress=1082&alertid=6127661%22%20target
*The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
=--=
now i'm not much of a believer in marraige in the first place. and, by "not much of a believer" i pretty much mean i find it to be antiquadated and not so good for society and would, ideally, prefer to see it just abolished.
however, it is here for any and all heterosexuals who want to claim commitment to another person for however long they feel like staying together. there is no reason why such cannot and should not be extended to all people.
to even suggest that the "sanctity" of marriage should be written into the constitution is the shit of which snl skits are made.
they want to ammend the consitution to say marriage should be a union between one man and one woman because that's what it says in the bible, (thus ignoring that whole first ammendment bit about the government not letting religion be dictated by the government,) fine. then add the word "lifelong" to union. because that, too, is in the bible.
let's see how long such a vote lasts then.
i cannot (ok, i don't want to) believe that the damn thing got so many votes in the first place.
red emphasis are mine. all other emphasis as is from original email.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on Federal Marriage Amendment
Take Action Now
07/14/2004
Senate Roll Call No. 155
108th Congress, 2nd Session
Rejected: 48-50 (see complete tally)
On a 50-48 vote, the U.S. Senate has failed to overcome a Democratic filibuster* and force a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The "cloture vote," as it is called, required 60 votes to bring debate to a close. Senators who support traditional marriage voted FOR cloture, while senators who support homosexual "marriage" voted AGAINST cloture.
I urge you, do not be discouraged! This is only the beginning of a long fight for the very foundation of Western Civilization. One of the primary purposes of this vote is to make public the position of each Senator. There is a general feeling that some Senators will have to be voted out of office before the FMA can pass. Those senators up for re-election who showed support for same-sex marriage should be held accountable in November's election.
TAKE ACTION
Select your state from the drop-down above to send your Senators an email about the vote.
I am committed for the long haul. I hope that you are also. Too much is riding on the outcome.
Please forward this email and help us to grow the involvement.
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
also seen at: http://capwiz.com/afanet/issues/votes/?votenum=155&chamber=S&congress=1082&alertid=6127661%22%20target
*The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
=--=
now i'm not much of a believer in marraige in the first place. and, by "not much of a believer" i pretty much mean i find it to be antiquadated and not so good for society and would, ideally, prefer to see it just abolished.
however, it is here for any and all heterosexuals who want to claim commitment to another person for however long they feel like staying together. there is no reason why such cannot and should not be extended to all people.
to even suggest that the "sanctity" of marriage should be written into the constitution is the shit of which snl skits are made.
they want to ammend the consitution to say marriage should be a union between one man and one woman because that's what it says in the bible, (thus ignoring that whole first ammendment bit about the government not letting religion be dictated by the government,) fine. then add the word "lifelong" to union. because that, too, is in the bible.
let's see how long such a vote lasts then.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: nevermind the constitution.
Date: 2004-07-19 06:48 am (UTC)Re: nevermind the constitution.
Date: 2004-07-20 10:35 am (UTC)thats exactly what i was thinking! we are in a groove on this one! rock on!
at least you don't bother to hide your true colors.
Re: nevermind the constitution.
Date: 2004-07-20 12:12 pm (UTC)