The “Rocky Mountain Progressive Network”:http://www.rmpn.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home has issued the following “challenge”:http://www.rmpn.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=53&navID=51 to those state politicians backing the Federal Marriage Amendment, including Rep. “Marilyn Musgrave”:http://wwwa.house.gov/musgrave (R-CO), who introduced the amendement into Congress:
bq. I, __________________________ (name of lawmaker), pledge to the People of _____________________________ (jurisdiction that lawmaker represents), Â that as a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment I am committed to upholding fidelity in marriage. I firmly believe fidelity is essential to the institution of marriage and that each person who violates that commitment undermines this institution.
bq. Accordingly, as an elected leader in the State of Colorado I pledge my commitment to uphold fidelity in my own life in order to lead by example and to preserve the institution of Marriage.
bq. ________________ (Signature) ______________Â (Date)
None of the named politicians have “signed”:http://www.rmpn.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=52&navID=50. “Atrios”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_atrios_archive.html#107766485172375008 and Geraldine Sealey at “Salon”:http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/02/25/fidelity/index.html (by subscription or day pass) think this campaign should go national. If conservatives are going to push the FMA, I couldn’t agree more. (Disclosure: the rabbi mentioned in the press release linked above is my dad. Go Dad!)
bq. *UPDATE*: meanwhile, “Oxblog”:http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com has a running “tally”:http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html#107772059078594254 of those senators who are for and against the FMA. As others have been saying, looks like the amendment is already dead in the Senate.
{ 6 comments }
Russell Arben Fox 02.26.04 at 6:29 am
I actually kind of think that in a way this is the sort of thing every married person should sign, completely aside from the FMA. But maybe that’s just me.
harry 02.26.04 at 1:23 pm
I agree with Russell (as so often). And imagine, if we did, what the Senators who refused to sign it would look like!
harry 02.26.04 at 1:25 pm
Well, apart from the bit about supporting the FMA.
Russell Arben Fox 02.26.04 at 2:55 pm
Just for the record, Harry, I don’t support the FMA. (As one conservative blogger put it–and on this issue, I agree with pretty much everything in his post (here: http://gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#107766694970283117)–the FMA “is more a cry of anguish than a proper piece of legislation.”) No, it’s the idea of public examples and declarations of fidelity that I like.
harry 02.26.04 at 3:13 pm
No Russell — I know you don’t; my post was meant to refer to the wording of the proposed pledge (which has ‘Supporter of the FMA’ in it). Sorry, should have been more careful.
Rv. Agnos 02.26.04 at 5:00 pm
Yeah, Oxblog already has 33 definite “no”s and some of his “unknowns” voted against the DoMA. This is going to be like the flag-burning amendment — the most important political issue on everyone’s mind right up until the moment that everyone forgot about it.
Comments on this entry are closed.