Right winger Republican (RwR) Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado has quite a record:

During her eight years in the Colorado Legislature, Musgrave, the mother of four and grandmother of five co sponsored a successful 2000 bill that defined a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. She has also pressed the legislature to pass laws expanding the right to carry concealed weapons, requiring doctors to provide brochures and a videotape to women seeking abortions, lowering the tax burden for families, more stringent immigration laws, making adoption of children by homosexuals illegal, upholding the rights of ranchers and farmers, and she opposes slave reparations. She now serves as a U.S. Representative.

Now, Marilyn is proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution called the “One Man One Woman Amendment.” From the web site of the Klu Klux Klan (supporters of Musgrave):

The Constitutional Amendment proposed by Musgrave and submitted to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution says, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of anyi state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferreed upon unmarried couples or groups.”

To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Musgrave points out that the homosexual movement is now making use of the many liberal judges appointed during the Clinton administration. Homosexuals are going to unelected judges to get their way rather than going through the legislative process.

Hat Tip: Joe.My.God

Comments

  1. #1 Ace of Sevens
    July 2, 2008

    Since almost all the important gay-right cases (basically eveything except Lawrence v Texas) have been a state-level cases, I fail to see what the Clinton administration has to do with anything.

  2. #2 JanieBelle
    July 2, 2008

    Crazy people aren’t big on facts or reality, Ace.

  3. #3 Zeno
    July 2, 2008

    Not only is the “homosexual movement” using “the many liberal judges appointed during the Clinton administration”, it’s using those liberal judges appointed to the California supreme court by George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson. Oops! Those guys are Republicans. (Ha!)

  4. #4 Anne Gilbert
    July 3, 2008

    Jeez. This is hardly surprising. A lot of fundamentalists are racists as well. And all of them believe “homosexuality” is sinful. Too bad this woman ended up being elected to the House of Representatives. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
    Anne G

  5. #5 T.
    July 3, 2008

    How gays will be bashed, if symbolic traditional union is for hetrosexuals? Gays can live together, if they want and follow their sexual orientation. Is caring for unborn lives evil? Are liberals upset, when ordinary people want legal guns as life insurance in bad areas and elsewhere? When will immigration to United States end? If immigration would solve problems, it would have done so already. Immigration creates need for more immigration; perpetuum mobile. Could it be that gays’ almost 20 times more risk for child molestation compared to heterosexuals creates reluctance to gay adoption? Is it natural that families want less tax burden, and ranchers and farmers rights? Slave reparations: Blacks who have never seen slavery, but plenty of affirmative action everywhere. “Elite”, who is extremely liberal, anti-white and pro-minority. Population who have never owned slaves. There is no need for reparations, I guess.

    The whole thing is crowned by unintellectual dragging of Klu Kux Klan into this.

    This is a view of United States as seen from Finland.

  6. #6 Greg Laden
    July 3, 2008

    Oooh oooh. Da poor innobent Klu Klux Klan being dragged into dis ugly mess….

  7. #7 Tinuz
    July 3, 2008

    I’m really wondering, why can’t gays be married or at least have the economic advantages of marriage imparted? What is the rational reasoning behind this? At least, what is the formal basis of this being in the constitution?
    God, religion? Well, last time I checked the USA was still a secular state so that argument should never fly. Besides, why defines what religion getes to say what’s right and wrong?
    Tradition, majority? Well, legislation is there (at least in part) to protect the minority against the majority. Besides, if something stupid is done for thousands of years…it’s still stupid. As well as when 5 billion people say a stupid thing, it’s still stupid. (If I had a penny every time one of these two arguments were invoked…..)

  8. #8 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    July 3, 2008

    Could it be that gays’ almost 20 times more risk for child molestation compared to heterosexuals creates reluctance to gay adoption?

    I’d sure like to see where you pulled that statistic from.

  9. #9 ildi
    July 3, 2008

    unintellectual? Pot, meet kettle….

  10. #10 Andrew
    July 3, 2008

    How will gays be bashed if legal rights are withheld from them on the basis of personal prejudice? Oh dear.

    Anyway.

    Doesn’t this foolish woman know that “teh ghey” is an airborn disease?! And she wants the no doubt demonic Homosexual Movement to pass through large groups of people like the legislature?

    Only reason she would want that is if she is an undercover agent for the islamo-communista-homo-fascists!

    Although judging by the stories about politicians that emerge from time to time I suspect the dread disease of Pervertitus has long blown through legislatures the world over. Especially the conservative elements of them, for some reason…

  11. #11 Hermafrodite
    July 3, 2008

    Could someone enlighten me on the legal definition of “man” and “woman” and how this affects the legality or non-legality of US marriages.

  12. #12 JanieBelle
    July 3, 2008

    Thank you T., for providing first-hand supporting evidence for my above comment.

  13. #13 jim
    July 3, 2008

    I think I know where he got the “fact” that homosexuals molest children at a rate of 20 times heterosexuals. He pulled the statistic from his ass.

    I have worked with many people who are homosexual and I have noticed one thing if they hadn’t told me they were gay I would not have been able to tell the difference. They did things at work that the heterosexuals did. (I make it a policy not to hit on co-workers or ask them about their sexual preferences. Their sexual orientation isn’t relevant to the job.)

    They exhibited the same concerns that heterosexuals do. They cared for their loved ones. Some wanted to start families so they adopted or had in vitro. They loved their children as any good heterosexual parent would. (as opposed to a bad heterosexual parent).

    I am all for gay marriage. I am not for civil unions as a substitute for gay marriage. Those couples should be treated the same under the law; giving them “equal status” with civil unions is BS. I liken that as segregated schools – Yeah they will be separate but equal.(what a load of BS on the effectiveness of that principal) If a church does not want to preform a marriage ceremony for them that is fine, but don’t work to prevent them from getting married. Marriage licenses are issued by the state not the church. You can have a marriage ceremony in a church and have it witnessed there, but it is the state that issues the license.

  14. #14 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    July 3, 2008

    I think I know where he got the “fact” that homosexuals molest children at a rate of 20 times heterosexuals. He pulled the statistic from his ass.

    Bingo. And while we are on that note, what is it with anti-homosexers that they are so obsessed with all things anal? Pulling stuff from their ass, worrying about what other people are putting in theirs…

    It’s a strange obsession.

Current ye@r *