Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Delay to bring "Federal Marriage Amendment" to the House floor Today! 9-30

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 08:59 AM
Original message
Delay to bring "Federal Marriage Amendment" to the House floor Today! 9-30
Take Action Now:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=13773


House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) now says that he will bring the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" (FMA) to the House floor on Thursday, September 30. A critical stretch in our fight for fairness is right around the corner, and, with your help, we believe we are in a good position defeat the right’s wedge politics again.

Because the FMA was defeated in the Senate earlier this year, right-wing groups are redoubling their efforts to sway House members on the upcoming vote and to distract voters from issues like jobs, health care, education, and the war in Iraq. Fax your Member of Congress today and urge him or her to reject discrimination and vote no on the "Federal Marriage Amendment."

In July:
The Federal Marriage Amendment - having fallen prey to intra-party GOP squabbling - could not even get enough support in the Senate to shut off debate and be voted upon. But while the victory for those who would keep discrimination from being enshrined in our Constitution was celebrated, the Right's anti-gay election-year strategy continued, unabated.

Save Our Constitution: Information and Action Ideas for Fighting the FMA

In February, President Bush officially endorsed a federal constitutional amendment that would require discrimination against same-sex couples and their families. The proposed amendment threatened to prevent same-sex couples from ever gaining equal access to the institution of marriage. That proposed “Federal Marriage Amendment” read:


“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
PFAW strongly opposed passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Not only would it have unfairly excluded gay and lesbian couples from the institution of marriage - and the more than 1,000 federal rights, protections, and responsibilities that come with it - but it would also have undermined the integrity of our founding document by writing discrimination into it for the first time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. I've talked to my congresswoman, Jan Schkowsky's office.
There's no way in hell she'll vote for this hateful piece of filth (Rep. Schkowsky has a impeccable record on gay issues) but I contacted her office about the anti-gay FMA.

Thank you for reminding everyone, though.

Terry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. my Congressman
Charles "Chainsaw" Taylor (NC) brags of his support of the amendment in his TV ads and is an all around RWingnut. He is hopeless. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. this thug needs to go - I've donated to Morrison, DeLay's opponent
(I live in MN)

Surely, if we all focus on DeLay, he can be taken down!

The Dailykos community supports Morrison at the Kos Dozen page:
http://actblue.com/list/dkos

Kos says:
"When I originally announced these endorsements, I gave three criteria I looked at -- two of which where essential for a candidate to get a nod: 1) Whether the district was in a swing state; 2) Whether the district was competitive; and 3) whether the Republican incumbent was a major fundraiser that we'd rather pin at home, rather than fundraising for at risk Republicans in other competitive districts.

No Republican House member raises as much money as Tom DeLay, and he had not bothered to campaign for reelection to his House seat for over a decade, lacking any significant opposition. That meant all his campaigning and fundraising was directed at other candidates.

Enter Richard Morrison. Here was a candidate with no money, going up against the House Majority Leader. People laughed at his chances. But he raised a fair amount of money online, and parlayed that into strong fundraising via traditional means. Poll results proved DeLay was beatable, and the DCCC is now considering putting resources into the race.

This is still an uphill race, but consider that DeLay is now pinned down in his own district until election day. And given a potential criminal indictment, lingering anger over his heavy-handed redistricting coup, a district made more Democratic by the arrogant DeLay during that redistricting, and a fired up Texas Democratic Party, and this David v. Goliath battle has the potential of going our way."


Here's Howard Dean's Democracy for American profile on Richard Morrison:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/candidates/candidate.php?district_id=4822

And here is Richard's site:

http://www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com/

A blurb from Morrison:

"The third fiscal quarter ends on Thursday. Richard is on track to raise $250,000 this quarter if we can pull in a little more this week. With the overflowing coffers of "The Hammer," the Morrison Campaign needs every dime it can get.

But the recent indictments have got Tom DeLay over the coals. We need to keep it going! You can help turn the heat up on Tom by donating whatever you can to the 3rd Quarter goal."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. GUTTER politics
and a huge waste of taxpayer's time and money

this is ONLY being done to force Dems to make a political vote in a campaign year. they KNOW they can't pass the amendment. they JUST want Dems on the record so repuke can use it against them

republicans are not a political party, they are a parasitic lifeform
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. It's all about diversion and trying to make democrats look
bad. !st overturning the ban on handguns in D.C. and now this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
6.  semi automatics would be ok for kids under 18
to have ready and loaded in their place of dwelling.
pretty cool eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. Unfortunately - it seems to be working for them
Edited on Thu Sep-30-04 10:51 AM by bloom
In my local paper today was a letter by a woman saying - that basically Democrats and Republicans could run the country as well as the other - so it came down to morals - the abortions issue, the gay marriage issue and that she didn't like Tereas Heinz Kerry.

:crazy: :eyes: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC