Printed on 1/12/12
Representative, House District 49
4/29/04
On Friday, April 23, House Joint Resolution 04-1013, a measure supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), sponsored by Representative Kevin Lundberg was brought to a vote on the House floor. The resolution was killed by a vote of 38-27.
Following the introduction and reading of the resolution, Representative Lundberg offered an amendment to endorse only the first sentence of the FMA, which states that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." The motion failed on a tie vote. Representative Lundberg then called for a vote on the resolution itself. However, Rep. Young (R-64) offered a substitute motion to lay the bill over until May 6, which would effectively kill the resolution. Rep. Young's motion passed by a vote of 38 to 27.
Although this might appear to be a setback, Rep. Lundberg will continue to fight hard in support of traditional marriage. While several members of the legislature and the media would like you to believe otherwise, Lundberg has kept firm in his position that a marriage resolution is not about insulting and discriminating against certain groups, it is about defining the age old institution of marriage. Defending traditional marriage will continue to be one of his top priorities and the people of Colorado can count on his full support in the days to come.
Representative Lundberg's Comments on the Floor durring the debate over his resolution
The family is the most essential institution of a civilized society. Historically, the family existed long before civil government or any other form of human culture. Any nation which has ever flourished had at its core the family unit gluing the day-to-day details of life into a harmonious system.
This is no accident of random social experiment. It is an intentional design. We see this intentional design of the family through the universal effectiveness of its function.
The traditional family of one man and one woman, bonded together in marriage, with the direct responsibility to raise their children, has contributed more for civilization than anything civil government has ever done.
Courts and prisons cannot create domestic tranquility, but a healthy family can. Families maintain stability and train future generations to live peaceful and productive lives.
Civil government cannot make or enforce enough laws to replicate the role of the family. I have seen first-hand that the legislature will never be able to mandate a responsible citizenry. In stark contrast, a solid family is the first, best step toward building and maintaining that responsibility at all levels. In the public arena the very best that can be done is to always encourage and promote the health of the traditional family.
Yet some in our culture want to try to redefine marriage, and thus undercut civilization's most effective means of promoting peace, harmony and prosperity. Their attempt to dilute the one man, one woman traditional marriage to any combination of any gender is not accepting a broader, fuller meaning of marriage; it is to miss the very point of marriage and attempt to supplant it with an inferior imitation. Including anything more than the traditional family in the definition of marriage would reduce the legal aspect of marriage to just another set of contracts and all aspects of family law would require similar modifications.
Ultimately we would not really redefine marriage, we would simply put our nation's laws in contradiction to the realities of human society.
Of all times in history, now is the most important time to stand up and defend that which is best. The traditional family is essential for any culture to flourish, and today's rapidly changing society is in desperate need of the stability and good influence of healthy families. This is what we should promote. This is what we should encourage. To embrace a counterfeit is to dangerously tempt a significant deterioration of our culture.
Unfortunately in Massachusetts, Oregon, New York state, New Mexico and San Fransicso the very meaning of marriage has been changed. Even though 36 states, including Col;orado and the U.S. Congress have passed defense of marriage acts, which clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the definition of marriage is in jeopardy until this matter is clearly settled in the U.S. Constitution.
I am proud to say that our representative in Congress, Marilyn Musgrave, understood that when she introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). She has courageously taken the lead in this matter, which I believe will be a major issue in our nation for the next several years.
When I first ran for public office I pledged to defend the interests of families. Because of the significant effect the Federal Marriage Amendment will have on this important subject, I intend to do what I can to promote the FMA at the state level.
For the Colorado legislature to ratify the Federal Marriage Amendment, Congress must first pass it by a two-thirds majority in both houses. I intend to introduce a joint resolution to urge our Congressional delegation to support the FMA and thus begin what I trust will be a careful and deliberate consideration of the Federal Marriage Amendment at the state level.
< Back to Federal Marriage Amendment
Colorado FMA Resolution Rejected
Home / The Issues / Archives / Family / Federal Marriage Amendment
Federal Marriage Amendment Resolution
by Kevin LundbergRepresentative, House District 49
4/29/04
On Friday, April 23, House Joint Resolution 04-1013, a measure supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), sponsored by Representative Kevin Lundberg was brought to a vote on the House floor. The resolution was killed by a vote of 38-27.
Following the introduction and reading of the resolution, Representative Lundberg offered an amendment to endorse only the first sentence of the FMA, which states that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." The motion failed on a tie vote. Representative Lundberg then called for a vote on the resolution itself. However, Rep. Young (R-64) offered a substitute motion to lay the bill over until May 6, which would effectively kill the resolution. Rep. Young's motion passed by a vote of 38 to 27.
Although this might appear to be a setback, Rep. Lundberg will continue to fight hard in support of traditional marriage. While several members of the legislature and the media would like you to believe otherwise, Lundberg has kept firm in his position that a marriage resolution is not about insulting and discriminating against certain groups, it is about defining the age old institution of marriage. Defending traditional marriage will continue to be one of his top priorities and the people of Colorado can count on his full support in the days to come.
Representative Lundberg's Comments on the Floor durring the debate over his resolution
The family is the most essential institution of a civilized society. Historically, the family existed long before civil government or any other form of human culture. Any nation which has ever flourished had at its core the family unit gluing the day-to-day details of life into a harmonious system.
This is no accident of random social experiment. It is an intentional design. We see this intentional design of the family through the universal effectiveness of its function.
The traditional family of one man and one woman, bonded together in marriage, with the direct responsibility to raise their children, has contributed more for civilization than anything civil government has ever done.
Courts and prisons cannot create domestic tranquility, but a healthy family can. Families maintain stability and train future generations to live peaceful and productive lives.
Civil government cannot make or enforce enough laws to replicate the role of the family. I have seen first-hand that the legislature will never be able to mandate a responsible citizenry. In stark contrast, a solid family is the first, best step toward building and maintaining that responsibility at all levels. In the public arena the very best that can be done is to always encourage and promote the health of the traditional family.
Yet some in our culture want to try to redefine marriage, and thus undercut civilization's most effective means of promoting peace, harmony and prosperity. Their attempt to dilute the one man, one woman traditional marriage to any combination of any gender is not accepting a broader, fuller meaning of marriage; it is to miss the very point of marriage and attempt to supplant it with an inferior imitation. Including anything more than the traditional family in the definition of marriage would reduce the legal aspect of marriage to just another set of contracts and all aspects of family law would require similar modifications.
Ultimately we would not really redefine marriage, we would simply put our nation's laws in contradiction to the realities of human society.
Of all times in history, now is the most important time to stand up and defend that which is best. The traditional family is essential for any culture to flourish, and today's rapidly changing society is in desperate need of the stability and good influence of healthy families. This is what we should promote. This is what we should encourage. To embrace a counterfeit is to dangerously tempt a significant deterioration of our culture.
Unfortunately in Massachusetts, Oregon, New York state, New Mexico and San Fransicso the very meaning of marriage has been changed. Even though 36 states, including Col;orado and the U.S. Congress have passed defense of marriage acts, which clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the definition of marriage is in jeopardy until this matter is clearly settled in the U.S. Constitution.
I am proud to say that our representative in Congress, Marilyn Musgrave, understood that when she introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). She has courageously taken the lead in this matter, which I believe will be a major issue in our nation for the next several years.
When I first ran for public office I pledged to defend the interests of families. Because of the significant effect the Federal Marriage Amendment will have on this important subject, I intend to do what I can to promote the FMA at the state level.
For the Colorado legislature to ratify the Federal Marriage Amendment, Congress must first pass it by a two-thirds majority in both houses. I intend to introduce a joint resolution to urge our Congressional delegation to support the FMA and thus begin what I trust will be a careful and deliberate consideration of the Federal Marriage Amendment at the state level.
< Back to Federal Marriage Amendment
