![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saifaiJust thought you all would like to know what he said, especially those on my f-list who live here.
In 1996, the 105th Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which
was signed into law by President Clinton. This law establishes a
federal definition of marriage as only a legal union between a man and a
woman as husband and wife, as well as defining "spouse" as a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Although I was not a member
of Congress when the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted, I
wholeheartedly support it because it preserves the right of states to protect the
institute of marriage.
Unfortunately, in recent months we have seen a number of instances
during which federal courts have meddled in this issue that, by law,
belongs to the states. Federal and local judges have overstepped their
bounds and have taken into their own hands the authority given solely to
states legislatures, pushing their own agendas with no regard to the law
of our land. I am extremely hesitant to seek changes to the
Constitution, and I regret that it has gotten to the point of needing a
Constitutional amendment to defend the sanctity of marriage as a union of a man
and a woman. However, I agree with the President that activist courts
and legislating judges have left us little choice.
As you may know, President Bush recently expressed his support to amend
the Constitution to ensure that marriage in the United States would
remain the union between one man and one woman and to ensure that
legislatures, not courts, would have the right to define any other type of
relationship. On May 21, 2003, Representative Marilyn Musgrave from
Colorado introduced H.J.Res. 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which
proposes such an amendment to the Constitution.
Marriage has played a foundational role in our nation and in
civilization throughout history. It is our most basic social institution, and it
should be protected by law and not left subject to the whims of a
particular court. While I regret that it has become necessary to amend the
Constitution, I will do what is necessary to protect this sacred
institution.
Feh. Yeah, thanks for taking into consideration my views there Butch.
In 1996, the 105th Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which
was signed into law by President Clinton. This law establishes a
federal definition of marriage as only a legal union between a man and a
woman as husband and wife, as well as defining "spouse" as a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Although I was not a member
of Congress when the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted, I
wholeheartedly support it because it preserves the right of states to protect the
institute of marriage.
Unfortunately, in recent months we have seen a number of instances
during which federal courts have meddled in this issue that, by law,
belongs to the states. Federal and local judges have overstepped their
bounds and have taken into their own hands the authority given solely to
states legislatures, pushing their own agendas with no regard to the law
of our land. I am extremely hesitant to seek changes to the
Constitution, and I regret that it has gotten to the point of needing a
Constitutional amendment to defend the sanctity of marriage as a union of a man
and a woman. However, I agree with the President that activist courts
and legislating judges have left us little choice.
As you may know, President Bush recently expressed his support to amend
the Constitution to ensure that marriage in the United States would
remain the union between one man and one woman and to ensure that
legislatures, not courts, would have the right to define any other type of
relationship. On May 21, 2003, Representative Marilyn Musgrave from
Colorado introduced H.J.Res. 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which
proposes such an amendment to the Constitution.
Marriage has played a foundational role in our nation and in
civilization throughout history. It is our most basic social institution, and it
should be protected by law and not left subject to the whims of a
particular court. While I regret that it has become necessary to amend the
Constitution, I will do what is necessary to protect this sacred
institution.
Feh. Yeah, thanks for taking into consideration my views there Butch.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 03:56 pm (UTC)WAY TO BE, BUTCH!
Or way to lose a vote.
You know, whatever.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 10:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 04:20 pm (UTC)I think I just stepped in a big gooey wad of hypocrisy.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 10:44 pm (UTC)*grumbles*