The Federal Marriage Amendment

[Josephine96]

Next week Congress will begin debating on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

This amendment if passed would sanctify the marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and ban gay and lesbian marriages.

Someone in my church even tried to tell me that if it doesn't pass.. and a homosexual couple were to come to my pastor and ask to marry them and he denied it.. he could even be jailed. {I didn't quite understand that part.. but I'm sure I'll learn }

Here's my question.. It may sound obvious.. but would you be FOR or AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment if it were on our ballots

[Josephine96]

I'd even ask for this to be a sticky because I think it's very important.. especially to know what everyone's opinion is lol.. But I won't go that far

[wx247]

I am against it for the simple fact that once you start putting in the constitution things you CAN'T do (beyond our basic rights, of course) then it becomes a limitless list of amendments that people can argue that "since it doesn't say I can't...".

It is dangerous ground to be treading as well in an election year. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds either way.

[Wnghs2007]

I would be for it....just for the basic fact that the liberal judges cant change it....Because it is in the constitution and as such they will lose there unconstitutional crap....Marriage is between a man and a woman and that is it....SIMPLE AS THAT.

[Josephine96]

I have to agree with those against it. Gays and Lesbians have rights too.

Plus the only way gays and lesbians would be able to have children really is to adopt.. so it can't hurt the population boom too much.

I voted undecided because if my Baptist church people heard my comments.. they'd probably slap me silly.. I actually love my Baptist church but don't agree with everything stated

[stormchazer]

I voted "For" not because I want the Federal to oversee it, but because states should decide, but the "Full Faith and Credit" clause makes this near impossible. It is hard for me to personally be for "gay Marriage".

I would support any law giving "Same Sex" civil unions all the legal protections of married couples.

[Wnghs2007]

I have to agree with those against it. Gays and Lesbians have rights too.

Yes they do have rights. But they should not have the right to marry.


I support civil unions but not Marriages.


[Edited out of respect for my fellow storm2kers]

[wx247]

I would support any law giving "Same Sex" civil unions all the legal protections of married couples.

I agree Jara.

[wx247]

I have to agree with those against it. Gays and Lesbians have rights too.

Yes they do have rights. But they should not have the right to marry.

To destroy marriage in such a way would be disgraceful to say the least. MARRIAGE IS DEFINED AS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN! GOD STATED SO AND IT SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY!

But then I again know with the stupid left and there liberal judges it will never be allowed to stay that way and the safety of and beautifulness of Marriage.

THAT IS WHY WE MUST MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT MAKING GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL!!!!!AS IT RIGHTFULLY SHOULD BE

Oh my lord. Someone calm him down. Someone get the preacher on the line. He may go into tongues any minute.

[Yankeegirl]

I just think "to each their own"... If one thing makes you happy, and it doesnt for another, who are you to decide ? If I was a lesbian (which Im not..lol..) I wouldnt want someone telling me that I cant marry who I want to marry... Just my opinion...

[Wnghs2007]

Oh my lord. Someone calm him down. Someone get the preacher on the line. He may go into tongues any minute.

LMAO. Thou is brought upon...Oh lord no. I wont start that.


Im very passionate over this. My whole life has been devoted to Jesus. My grandad took me to Church every Sunday when I was younger before he died god bless his soul. And he would always read me the bible. And we would watch movies about Armegedon and stuff. Im just really passionate about this subject.

[wx247]

Oh my lord. Someone calm him down. Someone get the preacher on the line. He may go into tongues any minute.

LMAO. Thou is brought upon...Oh lord no. I wont start that.


Im very passionate over this. My whole life has been devoted to Jesus. My grandad took me to Church every Sunday when I was younger before he died god bless his soul. And he would always read me the bible. And we would watch movies about Armegedon and stuff. Im just really passionate about this subject.

I understand KC. You can passionate without being fanatical. Please learn the difference. The ALL CAPS represent yelling in the cyber world. Also, the larger the font... the louder the speech.

I took this to be very preachy. You can make a point without going overboard. You can be religious and still differ in opinions.

[Josephine96]

Everybody has their right to an opinion.. But I agree with Garrett, KC.. tone it down some lol

[dryline22]

I am against it for the simple fact that once you start putting in the constitution things you CAN'T do (beyond our basic rights, of course) then it becomes a limitless list of amendments that people can argue that "since it doesn't say I can't...".

It is dangerous ground to be treading as well in an election year. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds either way.

You are dead on here, wx247.

My view is that the addition of an amendment to the constitution to deny civil rights -- or at the very least to exclude a group from an institution -- is unprecedented. In fact, any type of limitation or regression of social liberties is unprecedented in the document, with the exception of Prohibition... and we all know how well that worked out.

I will not delve into the whole philisophical tug-of-war surrounding this mess, but instead state my basic view on this whole issue: I am strongly for civil unions, and undecided on gay marriage. I feel that any attempt to squash civil unions (as was done by a law passed here in VA last week) is the work of bigots and reactionaries. At the same time, I understand the religious and traditional implications of changing the definition of the term "marriage," so I could accept a nationwide implementation of civil unions that are fully equivalent but lack the "m" word as a designator.

In short... the very idea of spending the time and resources to move backwards WRT civil liberties during a time with so many more pressing concerns for the nation is a frightening indicator of just how badly Shrub needs to be removed from office come November... he is not a moderate by any means, at least on social issues.

[Rainband]

I am against it for the simple fact that once you start putting in the constitution things you CAN'T do (beyond our basic rights, of course) then it becomes a limitless list of amendments that people can argue that "since it doesn't say I can't...".

It is dangerous ground to be treading as well in an election year. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds either way.

You are dead on here, wx247.

My view is that the addition of an amendment to the constitution to deny civil rights -- or at the very least to exclude a group from an institution -- is unprecedented. In fact, any type of limitation or regression of social liberties is unprecedented in the document, with the exception of Prohibition... and we all know how well that worked out.

I will not delve into the whole philisophical tug-of-war surrounding this mess, but instead state my basic view on this whole issue: I am strongly for civil unions, and undecided on gay marriage. I feel that any attempt to squash civil unions (as was done by a law passed here in VA last week) is the work of bigots and reactionaries. At the same time, I understand the religious and traditional implications of changing the definition of the term "marriage," so I could accept a nationwide implementation of civil unions that are fully equivalent but lack the "m" word as a designator.

In short... the very idea of spending the time and resources to move backwards WRT civil liberties during a time with so many more pressing concerns for the nation is a frightening indicator of just how badly Shrub needs to be removed from office come November... he is not a moderate by any means, at least on social issues.

I agree with both of you!!!

[GalvestonDuck]

*yawn*

Not this again...

It all boils down to the word "marriage." Eight simple letters and how they are used.

Some people are okay with all the legal mumbo-jumbo and certificates and documents and ceremonies and so forth for gays having a "union." Just don't call it a marriage, right?

We can say "couple" and when we're referring to people, we usually mean a man and a woman. And if we say "gay couple," we mean a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

So "marriage" can mean a man and a woman. And "gay marriage" can mean a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

But since no one want to call it "marriage" when it relates to a "gay" union, what else can we call it? A "garriage?"

And, as always, my final say -- I'm not married (or "united" or whatever it ends up being called) until it's done in a church. You can tell me I've got all the papers and the rights and the insurance and the homeownership and the taxes and the rings and the license and whatever else.

But, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not happy until it can be a spiritual union, and more importantly, commitment, in a church.

As for a law passed by Congress being able to "sanctify" anything -- I don't think so. Laws don't sanctify.

K.C. -- Where do you get that only libs support gay marriages? Most (not all, but many) of the dems I've encountered are anti-gay. It's the Reps and independents that seem the most supportive. Yes, there are a few in both groups. However, Fred Phelps (the dude who is always turning people away from God with his protests and "God hates f***" signs) is a yellow dog Democrat.

[Aslkahuna]

I do not believe that this is an issue that is appropriate for amending the Constitution for and certainly shouldn't be such a big issue at a time when we have much important things we need to take care of. Traditionally, it has been up to the States to decide this issue and to amend the Constitution would take away any options that the States might decide to pursue. Eventually, it should be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not Gay Marriage is legal or not.

Steve

[azsnowman]

I do not believe that this is an issue that is appropriate for amending the Constitution for and certainly shouldn't be such a big issue at a time when we have much important things we need to take care of. Traditionally, it has been up to the States to decide this issue and to amend the Constitution would take away any options that the States might decide to pursue. Eventually, it should be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not Gay Marriage is legal or not.

Steve

Tips his hat to you Sir Very well said.

BTW Garrett, what's the matter with "Talking in Tongues?" LOL! I actually pray in tongues and NO....I DON'T roll down the aisles, well, MAYBE sometimes

Dennis

[Rainband]

I like garriage Shawn and I agree

[OtherHD]

Marriage is a religious institution. The Government is, well, a government institution. KEEP THE TWO SEPERATE!! I personally think the entire system needs to be redone. Allow the gov't to grant civil unions to all couples. If you want a marriage, go to your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever and let them do it. Also, there should be no additional rights conferred to couples who go from civil union to marriage.