PDA

View Full Version : National Organization for Marriage



Erika1487
06-16-2011, 09:54 PM
There is a werid robot email going out from the National Organization for Marriage. I recvied this in my inbox about an hr ago??

Your message has been sent to your Congressman. Copies of your letter were also sent to Speaker Boehner, Rep. Cantor.
Thank you for making your voice heard!

As your constituent and a supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I urge you to stand in support of marriage by co-sponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 25 and opposing the “Respect for Marriage Act” recently introduced to repeal DOMA.

President Obama’s unilateral finding that DOMA is unconstitutional, and his directive that DOJ no longer defend DOMA in litigation, amounts to an end run on the Constitution that would short-circuit the judicial process, giving the President striking new powers to retroactively accept or reject laws passed by Congress. While the House is taking action to intervene to ensure that the law is defended, and that it receives a full and vigorous defense, no President has the authority to unilaterally pick and choose which laws are deserving of a legal defense.

The American people have clearly spoken when it comes to marriage, rejecting same-sex marriage in all 31 states where the question has been put to the ballot. Legislators in 14 other states have done the same thing. But at the same time, activist federal judges have issued rulings that threaten to strip millions of Americans of their civil right to vote for marriage, overthrowing the marriage laws of 45 states. A federal judge in San Francisco has already struck down Proposition 8, invalidating the will of 7 million California voters. A federal judge in Boston is attempting to strike down DOMA as well.

Like the vast majority of Americans, I believe marriage is the union of a husband and a wife. I do not want activist judges to take away our right to define marriage . . . or to redefine marriage so that schoolchildren are taught that their parents are bigots. Please stand for marriage by opposing any effort to repeal DOMA, and by supporting H.Con.Res. 25, calling on President Obama and the Department of Justice to honor their constitutional obligation to defend DOMA, ensuring that the rights of American voters are respected, and that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman.

Thank you.
(my name and adress was attached along with my email here)


Although I do not support NOM, there are parts of DOMA that I do support whole heartly, but would make some minor tweeks.
I wonder if it was just because I am on the Republican email list for Ohio & the midwest? Maybe they think because I work for GOP that I would support them no matter what? I unserstand thier point of veiw but to put my name adress & email out there for a CAUSE I HAVE NOT SUPPORTED seems very odd and unseemly at the same time.

hippifried
06-17-2011, 05:50 AM
I unserstand thier point of veiw but to put my name adress & email out there for a CAUSE I HAVE NOT SUPPORTED seems very odd and unseemly at the same time.
Just another fraud. DOMA;s already dead, ain't it?

Silcc69
06-18-2011, 05:30 PM
I wonder how I ended up getting some on some of these politicians email lists myself. I have never signed up for that shit.

trish
06-18-2011, 06:28 PM
Although I do not support NOM, there are parts of DOMA that I do support whole heartly, but would make some minor tweeks.
This statement makes it seem you support most of DOMA except for some minor tweaks. Care to elaborate? What do you like about DOMA that's not already law and what would you tweak?

Erika1487
06-19-2011, 03:56 AM
This statement makes it seem you support most of DOMA except for some minor tweaks. Care to elaborate? What do you like about DOMA that's not already law and what would you tweak?

The original Defense of Marriage Act

H.R.3396 -- Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)


--H.R.3396--

H.R.3396



One Hundred Fourth Congress



of the



United States of America



AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.


What I would Change in Sections 2 & 3

Section 2

`All States, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe,will be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the any sex that was married under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe'


Section 3

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between any man and one woman, One Man and one Man, One Woman and One Woman and the word `spouse' refers only to any person of either sex.'

Erika1487
06-19-2011, 03:58 AM
I wonder how I ended up getting some on some of these politicians email lists myself. I have never signed up for that shit.

Well most likely if you have supported a political party within the last 5 years they have shared your email around.

trish
06-20-2011, 12:21 AM
What I would Change in Sections 2 & 3Understandable enough. So what's in DOMA that you like and think we really need?

Erika1487
06-20-2011, 02:24 PM
Understandable enough. So what's in DOMA that you like and think we really need?

Sec 2
`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons

Basiclly defining what the states should inforce again I would change the act to be more inclusive.


Sec 3
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means

This is defining what marriage is so again I would change the langauge at the end to make it inclusive and unified across all 50 states,territory, possession, and Indian tribe.

Hope that is the answers your question?

trish
06-20-2011, 08:56 PM
I'm no lawyer, but Sec 2 sounds very general to me and would apply to other relationships besides marriage. Doesn't Sec 2 say that no State is obligated to recognize the adoption of a child by an adult if the it was not the State in which the adoption was granted? Not only marriage and adoption but all sorts of contracts between persons recognized in one State need not be recognized outside the State. Am I reading this correctly?

Erika1487
06-20-2011, 09:22 PM
I'm no lawyer, but Sec 2 sounds very general to me and would apply to other relationships besides marriage. Doesn't Sec 2 say that no State is obligated to recognize the adoption of a child by an adult if the it was not the State in which the adoption was granted? Not only marriage and adoption but all sorts of contracts between persons recognized in one State need not be recognized outside the State. Am I reading this correctly?

I don't think so... here is the text of the bill from the Libray of Congresshttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:h.r.3396.enr:

trish
06-20-2011, 09:59 PM
Thanks. I should've gone back to post #5 where you cited the full text of section 2. My confusion was with the shortened version in post #8.

Indeed the text of the bill is pretty short (Cain would love it). Your two tweaks amount to changing the intent of two-thirds of the bill. Why do you say you support parts of it? Which part? Section 1? Perhaps the two "clerical parts." If the latter, could you explain their significance?