|
Post by Speaker Hastert on Jan 5, 2006 1:18:19 GMT -5
IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Mr. SWIFT, (for himself,) offers,
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--
`SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of two loving, consenting adults willing to sacremate their marriage infront of a celebrant. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of two loving, consenting adults willing to sacremate their marriage infront of a celebrant.'.
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Jan 5, 2006 1:34:49 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I stand against this amendment, I have brought it to the floor so that the American people know that their Congress stands for the protection of our family values.
Adding this into the Constitution would be an attack on the prinipals our nation has embodied for over two centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Jan 5, 2006 23:22:14 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I concur with my collegue. Here we go again. These liberals attack our way of life. I belive and always have belived that the term marriage was a union between a man and a woman. This is how the forefathers of our nations thought of it, this is hos GOD thinks of it and this is how America thinks of it. And while we may have others of alternative lifestyles resididng in America do not call that union marriage. Call it being partners, or whatever term you want to use. God calls Marriage a Union between a Man and Woman, the nation calls marriage that and i'm gonna call marriage that. I think the liberals are wasting our time with useless legislation that goes against this country's moral character."
I yield
|
|
|
Post by jamestaggert on Jan 6, 2006 17:17:33 GMT -5
"Mr. Speaker,
I also second what has already been stated by my two colleagues from the Republican party. Personally, I view marriage as the bedrock of the family unit and thus of American society. We have already seen what the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family has done to society in terms of upping teen delinquency, crime, suicide and other negative factors. Evidence shows that single parents raising children on their own will have a high chance that their child will become involved in illegal activity. And this is but one example of how toying with the traditional family unit and fabric of society can bring about harmful consequences.
While I'm not saying being gay or having gay parents leads to more crime or other problems, I am saying that changing the definition of marriage could encourage further erosion with regards to traditional family families. Already our youth grow up amidst confusion and disillusionment. Allowing another type of marriage would only add to the current chaos.
Furthermore, allowing gay marriages would set a dangerous precedent for other changes. Polygamists and other such groups might come forward demanding changes. And if so, they would have a powerful precedent which they need to add clout to their case."
|
|
Morrison
Republicans
I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse.
Posts: 14
|
Post by Morrison on Jan 6, 2006 22:08:40 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Marriage is defined as a union between a Man and Woman. Allowing two consenting adults that are not the same sex to marry is completely hypocritical.
I yield.
|
|
|
Post by Zarathustra on Jan 6, 2006 23:39:07 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I rise in opposition to this legislation, if only because the word 'sacremate' appears nowhere within the English language.
I Yield.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Mahl on Jan 8, 2006 10:28:17 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I am deeply offended of this legislation for the reason that my colleagues have said before. Marriage is a sacred word to be used to describe the union of a man and women not anything else.
I Yield.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 8, 2006 17:24:42 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I do not think that this amendment is necessary, although do find myself disgusted at the attitudes of my fellow delegates. Several points have been raised which I think deserve clarification.
To begin with, yes this country has suffered a decline in family values and, as the Honored Representative from Louisiana points out, the lack of a stable family promotes aberrant behavior amongst the young. What he doesn't mention is that all statistics point to the fact that a gay couple is MORE likely to stay together and MORE likely to provide a stable family unit than a heterosexual one. On top of that, there is absolutely no evidence that has ever been found that a child growing up in a gay household is more likely to be gay themselves. More tolerant of gays, perhaps, but just as likely to be heterosexual as anyone else. Is a homosexual union better than a stable heterosexual one? A hundred times no. But is a homosexual union less stable than a heterosexual marriage? No. It's never been true and it's not true now.
Secondly, this amendment protects AGAINST polygamy, it does not encourage it. I did not write this amendment, nor have I sponsored it, but what I see written here is a measure which would protect heterosexual and homosexual unions, but would draw the line at polygamy, bestiality, and othe excesses. The 'slippery slope' simply isn't relevant to this discussion.
Finally, I am disgusted that certain members of this body purport to claim they know what God is thinking. Shame on you. Radicals have attempted to hijack the Christian faith and I stand up for all moderate, freethinking Christians to say get your grubby hands off our religion. The most radical and despicable members of the ultra-Conservative, hardline pseudo-Christians clearly still have their claws in the Republican Party and that, I think, is a damn shame.
But, in the end, I don't think this amendment is necessary. D.O.M.A. is on its way towards being declared unconstitutional, unless the Supreme Court decides to discard all precedent and their own past rulings. State legislatures and state courts have been gradually making their way towards legalizing gay marriage and even the Republicans have stopped saying 'ban it' and have started saying 'just give it a different name'. Why give it a different name if its going to be the same thing? Soon enough this country will have progressed to the point where homosexual marriage is seen as being perfectly acceptable and the hold outs within the Republican Party will discover the virtues of tolerance a few years behind the rest of the country.
Liberals are not 'attacking the American way of life'. Being liberal IS the American way of life.
I yield.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Jan 10, 2006 1:01:21 GMT -5
"Sir, Your a Christian? Really? And your cursing? You used cursing in your speech but claim to be Christian. You disgrace the body of Christ. I dont care if this amendment draws the line with all other unions. There is something called common sense. Its common sense that makes me say i wont go marry ebony my cat. Its common sense that says i wont marry Susan and Anna. Its common sense that protects Americans from the so called outrages you speak of. You say that being liberal is the American way of life? Its your way of life sir, dont speak for me, my collegues and for sure dont speak to all my constituents who belive the way i do. Nay its your way of life. And some of us Americans a great majority of us think that this amendment is wrong. It pray it dont pass and i pray that these liberals bring more worthwhile legislation to this body than this garbage they want to call a bill. You claim i got my hands on Christianity, and to get my grubby hands off of it. That free thinking Christians belive that gay rights is ok? Are Christians supposed to belive in this book?"
Green holds a bible in his hands. He opens it up and puts on his glasses."Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." "That is Leviticus 18:22, how dare you claim to be Christian when you come here and purpose that we pass an amendment that is against God's law? You must not belive in this book and therefore you have some nerve to call yourself Christian or to lecuture me on religion. My constituents know this is wrong, America knows this is wrong. Our nation was founded on this book. Our forefathers walked with this book. This nation was created under the mandate of God. ONE NATION UNDER GOD. That is the pledge, this is what we have founded this country on. This amendment is not only non christian its simply un-American. We cannot allow this to pass. I yield.."
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 10, 2006 12:05:59 GMT -5
Representative Green,
I too am a Christian, and since you bring up the subject of Leviticus, I am going to point yourself to several passages in that book, and several from the New testament as well, and we shall see what we find. Before you respond, I ask that you keep in mind that I do not support this amendment, because I feel that this subject is best left to the definition of the individual states. Religion is a private matter best left to the individual to choose his way. I personally am a christian, and follow that path. Tolerance, Forgiveness and Peace are the values that I have learned from the Lord's teachings. I do not profess to be a deacon, as you are, and I prefer to practice my faith in a more private forum. However, since you take it on yourself to use the bible to promote discrimination, segregation and oppression, I must object and let my voice be heard. These are the passages I will direct you to:
Leviticus 12: 5-6 "For fourteen days after a woman gives birth to a daughter, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. Then it will be sixty-six more days until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood. When the time of her purification is completed, whether for a son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence a one-year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. The priest shall present her offering to the Lord and perform the ritual to take away her impurity, and she will be ritually clean. This, then, is what a woman must do after giving birth."
Leviticus 19: 10 "Do not go back through your vineyard to gather the grapes that were missed or to pick up the grapes that have fallen; leave them for the poor people and foreigners."
Leviticus 19:19 "Obey my commands. Do not crossbreed domestic animals. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothes made of two kinds of material."
And now from the new testament:
Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too."
Matthew 6: 1-2 "Make certain you do not perform your religious duties in public so that people will see what you do. If you do these things publicly, you will not have any reward from your Father in heaven."
Now having read those passages, I ask you some questions: When was the last time you heard about a woman waiting a total of 80 days for purification followed by the sacrifice of a one year old lamb and a pigeon or dove for the purposes of ritual cleansing? Would you propose that we make that a law within the United States? Because I don't believe, as the bible states in Genesis, that women are subject to men. My wife is my partner in all things, not my servant. How about the missed and fallen grapes in a vineyard? Should we mandate that only they be distributed amongst the poor and immigrants to our country? Also, might I ask what the makeup of every piece of clothing you own? Do you have only 100% fabrics? Do you shun Polyester Blends? If you like dogs, as I do, do you stay away from mutts and crossbreeds as unholy? Do you keep a garden, and is it only made up of one type of plant?
Mr. Green, according to the Christian faith, when Jesus was born on earth, and walked among us, and died for our sins, a new covenant was made between man and God. That covenant promoted Peace, Love, Tolerance and Forgiveness, things that Leviticus as a book does not support in whole. In fact, the book supports slavery, the subservience of women towards men and it supports burnt offerings. In fact, the New Covenant was made to replace the old one, of which Leviticus is a part. Now, I disagree with this amendment because I believe that every individual has a right to his own beliefs and practices, and I believe that this issue should be decided as such, by the individual states and their people. I believe that that is covered under the first Amendment of the Constitution, which you, and I, and everyone else here swore to uphold.
We all spoke the words "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
And yet this oath is against God's will according to the Bible, despite its intention to show our servitude toward him in all things. After all, did not Jesus say in Matthew 5:34-37 "But now I tell you: do not use any vow when you make a promise. Do not swear by heaven, for it is God's throne; Nor by earth, for it is the resting place for his feet; Nor by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King. Do not even swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. Just say Yes, or No - anything else you say comes from the Evil One."
Does that mean that you hold your oath to this body and the Constitution of the United States invalid, or evil? I know that I do not. I love this country, I love the Constitution, and I love my faith. That faith, however, is a matter between God and myself, not something to be decided by other men. There are many more Christians who feel the same way. It is possible to be Christian and support women's rights and equality, It is possible to be Christian and own a mutt. It is possible to be Christian and wear a shirt that is only 50% cotton. And it is surely possible to be Christian and support Gay Marriage.
Mr. Green, in many ways Leviticus is passed its time according to our country's values. The Bible is more than one book, and has more than one teaching. I suggest you turn to the New Testament and brush up on your turning of the other cheek. If you wish to bring back slavery, to banish women to the home and prevent them from working, to promote ritual cleansings and the like, I suggest you join Opus Dei, or move to another country where intolerance like that is more appreciated. I however, am not going to let you thump your bible while speaking words of injustice and oppression.
I yield.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 10, 2006 12:17:29 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
The Representative from Georgia has the right of it. It is the decision of the States to decide how to handle gay marriage. As such, I will not be supporting this amendment.
However, I am disgusted at the behavior of a certain other Representative within our ranks. To call someone un-Christian for disagreeing with you is bad enough, but to quote Leviticus to this august body? Leviticus is a holy book that God himself mandated would EXPIRE with the coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ came. The book is no longer relevant. Leviticus was a series of laws that God ordained for the ancient Jewish people to follow. They are not meant to be followed in the modern world.
I give you another quote from Leviticus:
Leviticus 25:44-45
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property."
It is heartening to know that there are still some within the Republican Party who support slavery. I hope and pray that this is not a common belief.
This body has just been lectured that gay marriage is wrong, but that we can rely on common sense to stop polygamy. Nothing could be more hypocritical. Does common sense tell us that murder is wrong? Certainly, but people still do it. Does common sense tell us rape is wrong? Most assuredly, but it still occurs. We make crimes illegal so we can punish those who cross over the lines of decency. The refusal by the Representative from Colorado to conduct himself in a civil, consistent manner reveals the truth about this issue: it is a matter of partisan politics, not religious faith. No devout Christian would ever come into these halls and quote Leviticus as if it was the modern Word of God.
The Representative from Colorado can yell about the evil nature of liberals all he likes, but it doesn't change the fact that God loves homosexuals just as much as He loves you or I. That is the nature of God. Love. And spitting out obsolete messages of Hellfire and Damnation will not change that. The Christian faith is founded on the New Testament, not the old. It's past time we all came to terms with that.
I yield.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Jan 15, 2006 2:28:51 GMT -5
Sirs,
I have never said that Christianity is a religion of intolerance. I have never said tha the New Testament is not important. However gentlemen i have stated that while God does love homosexuals. For in 2nd John God proclaimed that he is love. And while he is love, he is God, and while he is God he is pure. And he has stated over and over again that homosexuality is an abomination. Do you discount the old testiment because we have the new? Nay, for the Lord stated that he came to fufill the old testiment. The old is just as important as the new. And while i do not support slavery in the United States and yes that according to you is contradictory to exodus, my personal character will now allow for slavery. The indentured servitude of this hebrew nation who just overcame slavery themselves is far in comparison to the whips on the backs of my ancestors in the heat of Georgia.
Gentlemen i myself may not agree with slavery, but i belive that God inspired EVERY word of that bible and i have to take it at face value. I wont discount one thing and agree on another. Now gentlemen your open to your own beliefs, but i have talked to my constituents and as great many of them feel the same as i. I say lets end this countless bantering and bickering and call for a vote. Let's see if it passes or fails, gentlemen you vote how you wish and i will vote how i wish, nay you vote according to the dictates of your conscience and what you belive your constituents want and i will do the same. I have gotten out there and have talked with them. I have asked them how they feel on this issue. Some of them want this measure passed and i know thier voice will be represented in you. However alot of them reject this idea as being Godless and Un American, i refuse to bicker with you on C-Span any longer. You have stated your opinon i have stated mine, now lets see if this bill can stand the test of democracy.
I call for a vote..
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 15, 2006 8:58:50 GMT -5
Mr. Green,
In case you failed to understand what both my colleague from Illinois and I said, it was simple. We are against the amendment, and will vote as such. The reason for our extended debate was your trashy and limited use of the Bible in this instance. Please, keep to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Don't mix the two
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 16, 2006 1:38:38 GMT -5
Slavery is no longer God's Will because Leviticus expired. Leviticus, as a book, was written to lay down rules governing the behavior of a now-vanished Priesthood. Those Priests do not exist, their 'laws' apply to absolutely no one. You can make some inferences about God's Will in ancient times through reading it, and even study how certain New Testament thoughts came about by reading it, but it is NOT valid scripture to quote in the interests of arguing a point in modern theology.
I have taken a stance against your manipulation of the Holy Word and your distortion of the foundation for my religion. This amendment, as I have stated before, is not something I support and I believe will fail. But to manipulate the Word of God to support your political goals is simply unacceptable, and it is something for which I will not stand.
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Jan 16, 2006 1:49:35 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
This house has turned into a chaos of empty preaching. I move to end debate.
|
|