Do you support a Constitutional Amendment recognizing marriage as a union between a m

[thedrifter]

Do you support a Constitutional Amendment recognizing marriage as a union between a man and a woman?


GWB said last night in he would support a Constitutional Amendment that does just that. Such an Amendment would really tie the hands of any liberal activist judge who wants to promote the concept of marriage between genders as the same as a union between same genders.

GWB did add he would support the states making various protection laws and civil unions for gays, just not calling it a marriage defined as the institution between opposite genders.

So what is your thoughts.


Sempers,

Roger

[USMC-FO]

No, I do not !

The gov't has no reason to be in this arguement except that it has chosen to stick itself into the middle of this.

It also does not belong in a woman's womb, but there it is.

The issue is should gay couples be granted the same basic rights accorded married couples. Gays should not have their basic civil rights abridged because or their sexually predetermained predispositions. Call it a civil union law or whatever, but it is not a marriage. Let churches alone determaine what they wish to call marriage.

Everytime the gov't tries to engineer social acceptance and mores they F up the entire picture. We do not need to see our Constitution messed up with this sort of nonesence.

Beyond that I have no stong opinions on this matter.

[GunnerMike]

Very much like the great debate on assault weapons , the debate on gay marriage leaves me befuddled. The Assault Weapons Bill of 1994 managed to define a Barrett .50cal as an assault weapon, but is it really?

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines Marriage as:

Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

I think the key words that are glossed over in the debate are husband/wife/family.

Not politically correct, just the way I was raised and taught.

[mrbsox]

NO !!!

But only because the Gov't shouldn't be involved in the first place.

My 2 cents worth ;

Marriage is a covenant set forth in the Bible, between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve.... NOT Adam and Steve !!

Governments decided that they needed to be involved, and the next thing we know is that 'Men of the cloth' were no longer the only ones performing marriages. It became a 'legal' matter. Yada, yada, yada ....

Had marriage been left to the church (of your choice) as it was first established, we probably would not be having these issues in the first place.

This is a good place to yell 'Seperation of Church and State' !!!

But.... then there are the catholic priests and their indescretions !!

But that too is another matter.

Terry

[Sparrowhawk]

Supporting gay desires that are contrary to the laws of nature and morally wrong does not make it right.

Even nature tells us, Gay marriages are wrong. They are unnatural relations.


There is something seriously wrong with a man that abandones his natural relations with a women and becomes inflamed with lust for another male. Same with the women.

As much as they want us to believe it, Gays, are not gay, but live a miserable existence because of their deprived nature and remain the major cause of AIDS in America.

[Sixguns]

Put me down in the column with Gunner Mike.

This is a true story. My wife and I did not become members of a local congregation of my faith for this very reason. When I retired and moved back here, we met with members of the congregation and the spiritual leader of my faith's house of worship. The very next day after meeting him, a "lifestyles" article in the newspaper explained his gay union with another man. It talked about how they went to Vermont and were joined in some ceremony as "partners" after seven years as a "couple." Mind you that Vermont is not where they live, but merely a state, nearby, that would formally recognize such a "marriage." I am not opposed to those who are gay and realize that this is a choice or preference that they have for themselves. I do not consider this discrimination. I could not, due to moral beliefs, have my family (especially, my children) be taught our Lord's word and the lessons of the Bible by someone who chose a same sex union that is never approved or accepted in the scriptures.

This battle is a religious one, and should not be a governmental one. If a religion teaches and approves of such a union, government should also recognize it. In this way, the government can enforce policies and practices that those of this union and religious affilation are not discrimated against. Now, can someone tell me of the relion that recognizes the union of man and man or woman and woman as the will of their God?

SF,

Sixguns

[gwladgarwr]

No, I do not.

Constitutionally speaking, such an amendment would construe a violation of its own terms.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 14, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution already states that any rights and laws not stated in the Constitution and/or are not reserved for the Federal government are to be reserved for the various states. Furthermore, such an amendment would be in violation of Amendment 10 which guarantees equal protection under the law. With DOMA and the various states' laws explicitly banning same-sex "marriage" in effect violating the 10th Amendment denies equal protection and due process, a right re-enforced by the 9th Amendment of rights in general.

DOMA and any such Constitutional amendment abridging any possible 'newly-created' rights run counter to these amendments and to the Constitution as a whole. Shouldn't the Constitution be a means to extending and protecting rights and liberties to ALL of our citizens and not only to the "righteous", or, even better, "normal" folks?

If this is a matter of separation of chuch and state, then I really don't care what the churches say; that said, the Federal government has no say in the matter and infringes on the rights of the various States to make such a determination, regardless of how unpopular the decision is (unless such a determination abridges any current rights in our Constitution as I believe DOMA and same-sex marriage bans do.)

Folks who want to marry persons of the same gender are required to contribute to society but are refused the same protections and rights that all the rest of us enjoy. Some folks may think such a "marriage" is wrong, but it truly scares me to think that folks are so eager to deny ANYONE of ANY rights and equal protection under the law.

So, folks are equal ONLY when one's church gives its blessing, eh?

Please view my signature at the bottom of my post.

Them's my two bits.

[lurchenstein]

I agree that no Constitutional Amendment is going to fix the problem. Aside from government "social engineering" or religious views, anthropologists define marriage universally (in all known societies on earth) as a means to control men's access to women (sexual activity) and give legitimacy to the offspring of a man and woman. In that respect, a gay relationship isn't on the same par as the institution of marriage and shouldn't be considered equal to a "marriage" between a man & woman. There are other means (such as "domestic partners" in California) to get the "bennies" and recognition they're really after without further mucking up the institution of marriage. (Some heteros are doing a great job of mucking it up as well.) What'll it be next (people-animal unions)?

[leroy8541]

I don't know just think of it as a convinience, say two buddies that are lance corporals that get tired of living in the squad bay can just go get married, and draw all the extra bennies of being brown baggers. There is no law that says you have to have sex with each other if you are married. Since a brown bagger has to keep a wall locker and a rack in the squad bay any ways think of the cash they can rake in!! After EAS they can get divorced, and get on with their lives,get married to a woman, and bear children as God intended. What a scam.

[Sophora]

leroy8541 you bring up a good point on the scam, but isn't it also a scam that is available now to a man and woman in the military? It's also a scam that the Dept of Imigration has been struggling with with foreigners marrying citizens for the sole purpose of staying here. There will always be scammers trying to twist the system to their benifits.

Is homosexuality an unnatural act? It has been observed and scientifically documented in other species besides man, Natures own population control? Who knows. An Act against God? I'll leave it to God to judge.

I have some very good friends who are gay. The couples I know have been together for over 20+ yrs. Both couples are living all these years in committed monogamous relationships. Most of the hetero couples I know haven't been that commited. Should my gay friends be allowed to marry? Hell why should they want to? They'll get saddled with the marriage tax and have to give more to the IRS.

I don't think the Federal government should get involved in this. This is an issue for the states. I do believe if some states do allow it a couple should not be allowed to marry there then go back to their home state and demand it be recognized. If they want to be married then go live in a state that allows it. I do believe these couples should be entitled to legal protections.

It is an issue that has great ramifications. Will it be the distruction of family values as some folks say? Hell over 51% of marriages end in divorce. Family values have been in the dump for yrs. It's a sad statement of reality. We should support families and commitmen, no matter what form it takes. Government needs to stay outta the bedroom.

[usmc4669]

thedrifter:

Where did you get this information? From what I have heard George W. my cousin, has never been for Gay Marriages.

Constitutional Amendment: Here we go again, amending the Constitution, if you don't like the way the Constitution was written, then move the hell out of my Country. That the problem with our Politicians, they take a good thing and screw it up.

mrbsox:

But.... then there are the catholic priests and their indescretions !! Clarify what you mean.

leroy8541: say two buddies that are lance corporals:
Why do you have to bring the Marines into the issue.

Sophora:

You make a good point. But "Is homosexuality an unnatural act?"
You damn right it is. Have you ever watch homossexual make love? Well I have, on Fire Island, right in front of everyone. I had an uncle who was homosexual, it was his choice he wasn't born homosexual. Anyone who think someone is born homosexual must be a homoseaual. My wife has a cousin who has two grown kids and has grandchilrens, he got devoiced and started living with a young man, if he was born homosexual he would never have gotten marriage in the first place.

[namgrunt]

If two persons want to get together for mutual financial benefits and protected status, let them form a mutual partnership and INCORPORATE. That happens all the time, and is legitimate. The definition of Marriage, which I grew up with, and still consider valid, is two people of opposite sexes, uniting for love and the possibility of CONCIEVING progeny (children). If there are other reasons for the marriage, that is well and good, as long as the original criteria are met.

If any union demands a surrogate form of conception, such as "in vitro" fertilization, or a surrogate mother, or spermbank donor fathers, then it needs further scrutiny. It is a marriage only if the natural methods were tried, but was found unworkable due to an existent medical condition of either partner. Otherwise, it is political correctness carried to a higher level.

Its bad enough that certain celebrity dunces "marry" for the free publicity it will get them, in order to boost flagging CD sales. It is worse when the intitution is used as a means for social transformation of our society. We have seen what this sort of interference has wrought within our military. Do we want the same thing injected into our homes?

I don't like the idea of a "law" on the books defining what marriage is. It has been known and accepted for millenia that the state of matrimony is between a man and woman, usually for creating children. For what other reason could this state exist? To codify it in law will intrude into a faith based region of human behaviour. There is already too much government intrusion of this sort. I don't want marriage defined by some Senate or House sub committee. Recall the argument of "separation of Church and State", which is trumpted all too often.

Proponents may call it what they want, but I shall never recognize such a union, as male to male, or female to female, to be a marriage. That may be a relationship, but nothing more. And I don't want the government telling me I have to believe otherwise. Whatever Washington declares today, can be revised 180 degrees by future politicians for political gain, somewhere down the road.

namgrunt

[mrbsox]

Gunnery Sergeant, you asked me to clairify;

"But.... then there are the catholic priests and their indescretions !! "

My view point in that issue is fostered by my personal belief that;

1) Homo-sexuality is an unnatural act, as we all (should) know. This thread is about Homo-Sexuality, and if we believe it SHOULD become a legal matter.

2) The 'sexual urge' is a human instint, placed there by nature. If it is natural, it must be because God wanted us to have it.

3) Man will find a way to satisfy his natural urges.

It is MY OPINION that a vow of celebacy (sp ??) is against nature, denying the very fabric that God wove into our being. To take on such a lifestyle (celebacy), in MY OPINION, is lighting the fuse for failure.

If a Priest cannot control himself, and a religious order cannot control it's priests, well, that's a matter that is getting off the subject of this thread (my clairification). Perhaps I should have left that paticular view point out of my response !!

I do not personally follow the Catholic doctrine, or those like it. I find them to feel too 'man made'. Likewise, I do not condone some aspects of other religions. That does NOT mean that I cannot respect someone elses right to follow whatever doctrine that they see fit, in THEIR life.

Terry

[firstsgtmike]

".....amending the Constitution, if you don't like the way the Constitution was written,....."

Does that include the 1st Ten Amendments?

How about the next three or four? , Or the last three or four?

[Sophora]

I was raised Catholic. When I went to marry, the priest at my church refused to marry me and my husband to be even though he was catholic, simply because he wasn't a church goer. That was the final straw for me and My church. We got married by a Judge at the courthouse. The Churches of the different religions has a say in who they will marry in God's eye. Most will probably deny homosexual marrigaes. The civil courts will have to in the states that choose to recognize these types of marriages. That does not mean the whole country should have to. Let each state decide what they want. I think it is a minor issue in the scheme of things important to this country. To make a constitutional issue of it gives it more value than it is worth. Give them legal rights but let marriage be in God's eyes and the churchs. Kep the feds outta it.