Statement from senator Coleslaw on the federal marriage amendment

Deja Q

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-18-04 07:55 PM
Original message

Statement from senator Coleslaw on the federal marriage amendment

http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=400

May 20th, 2004 - Washington, DC - ?I support the principle, and existing federal law, that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. I do so with the hope that this debate does not serve to generate intolerance or discrimination.

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 by huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, states that, as far as the federal government is concerned, ?the word ?marriage? means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife? and that no state shall be forced to recognize the meaning of marriage determined by another. I support the spirit of this legislation because it seeks both to protect the institution of marriage while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of the states. This is a good law.

(snip)

That is why I believe that the time has come for the Defense of Marriage Act to be officially ground into the impenetrable legal foundation that is the United States Constitution. I believe the Constitution will be amended on the question of marriage: the real question before us is whether it will be amended by unelected judges insistent upon overstepping their constitutional authority or by the true source of sovereignty in the United States, the American people.?

Hmmm, if people had the same choice during the civil rights upheavals of the 1950s and 1960s, would we still be segregated today?

They use judges for their own gain, but will have tantrums when they are ruled against. Hmmm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

grannylib

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-19-04 12:38 AM
Response to Original message

1. I'm thinking that they should pass the damn thing with the addition of 2

little words: "for life." Most of these extremist freaks are claiming their views are based on scripture/Bible passages, but they conveniently ignore the fact that the Bible also says that any man who puts aside his wife and marries another commits adultery. But hey, divorce is almost a sacrament now, once a guy gets rich and powerful and needs a trophy wife, right???
Or is marriage SO sacred that some people are entitled to more sacredness than others?? Like Bob Barr, who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, being on his third??
If they are really going to try to base this on scripture, let's do it all the way.
Never happen, of course.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nobody

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-22-04 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. I disagree about "for life"

Having known four people who have been married to and divorced from abusive spouses, you have to have an out in case of serious need.

No human being makes perfect decisions all the time. Sometimes the person you think is right for you and treats you like royalty while dating will undergo a complete 180 degree personality shift. It's very typical of abusive mates. Often the abused partner doesn't find out until after the vows are spoken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no name no slogan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-19-04 01:47 AM
Response to Original message

2. Hello Kettle. This is the Pot. You're black.

Coleman giving advice on marriage is a little like Jeffrey Dahmer giving advice on veganism.

It's this simple: against same-sex marriage? THEN DON'T HAVE ONE!

Jiminy, even Barry Goldwater's turning in his grave on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

suegeo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-22-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. The tuna sandwich...

His wife lives on the west coast, and shucked her wedding ring a long time ago. ANd the Tuna Sandwich has the stupidity to lecture us peasants on holding marriage sacred!?!

Please. Sell crazy somewhere else, Norman. We're all stocked up here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Commie

(94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-25-04 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Coleman is a Dumbass

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newyawker99

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-25-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. Hi The Commie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dickie Flatt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-25-04 09:57 PM
Response to Original message

7. So much for being a moderate

Didn't he say he wanted a "narrowly defined" amendment, or something to that effect? At least we've still got one Senator who won't vote for this load of crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PattySm

(2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-26-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message

8. Why do I feel like Coleman

Anybody else feel like Coleman is still repaying a debt to Bush? Or in line for the core conservative crowd? When does he actually speak for the people of Minnesota?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newyawker99

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jun-27-04 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. Hi PattySm!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zookeeper

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-29-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #8

10. Hi PattySm!

I think Norm is extremely ambitious and will do and say whatever he thinks will further his political career. He is in lockstep with BushCo. It will be interesting to see what happens to him when our country's political leanings become more moderate/liberal again.

Coleman and Dennis Miller: Two cynical opportunists who have painted themselves into a corner.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Deja Q

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-05-04 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #8

11. Welcome to DU!!

:bounce: :party:

Zookeeper is quite right...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

UrbScotty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-13-04 11:48 AM
Response to Original message

12. "The IMPENETRABLE legal foundation..." ??????????

That is why I believe that the time has come for the Defense of Marriage Act to be officially ground into the impenetrable legal foundation that is the United States Constitution.

Very next sentence:

I believe the Constitution will be amended on the question of marriage: ...

How could something as 'Impenetrable' as the Constitition be amended? Oh, because it's NOT impenetrable! Thank you, Article V!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:44 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.