Should we base the change of the constitution on religion? And the fact that same-sex marriage is illegal in some countries makes me wonder how thoses people were raised and in what religion?
133918
In one sense you bring up an interesting point.  Let me challenge you with a broader concept...\n\n...do our Laws reflect our Morality....or does Morality stem from the Laws we make each other abide by?\n\nIn their written series of civilization, Will and Ariel Durant made the point in the first book, "Our Oriental Heritage", that man did not need or make laws until he thought his neighbor needed them.\n\nThink on that a bit as you ponder your own question.\n\nIn my own personal opinion, I do believe that faith can and should inform public policy.  In a republic such as ours, we have agreed to abide by the majority, until a new majority comes into being.  And each new majority will bring its' own set of values.
7879
How can we as believers in God believe that God is not in our schools simply because the government does not try to force children to believe what the government says. (You understand that the government runs the public schools, and if you want religion in school, what you want is the government telling us what kind of religion to practice. Right?)\n\nI recommend that you do study into American hisory -- the beliefs of the founders are mixed, and the principles founding the country are those of religious freedom from government more than government bsed on religion.\n\nAlso, out of curiosity -- what does your main question have to do with the rest of the question?
84957
The US government claims to be separate from religion. IF that was true -\n\nWhy would there not be a civil legal arrangement (civil union, domestic partner, marriage, whatever) available to anyone who wanted to create a household?  Or - if these special relationships are solely for the care and protection of children, then change the rules so that only those intending/capable of parenthood are allowed to participate.  \n\nLeave a religious sacrament of marriage to the tenants of each individual faith.  As it is now, the government is treating different christian faiths differently, based on which ones they like.\n\nIn my opinion you can't have it both ways - either it is a religious sacrament and the government should have nothing to do with it OR it is an arrangement under civil law - in which case it should be open to all regardless of their religion. I suppose there is one more option - change the official statement about the separation of church and state and openly admit that our government DOES support one or more religions to the detriment of others.
660614
With the separation of church and state, can the government even legislate what marriage is??  "Marriage" is a religious ceremony to unite 2 people.\n\nIf the government wants to have marriage be a lawful union, then they have to come up with an unbias reason (not based in religious belief) that gays should not marry.  Because it is stated to be wrong in the bible will not fly in a court of law.  Anytime that someone tries to pass a law about marriage being between a man and a woman, it gets struck down as unconstitutional because lawmakers can't come up with a good enough reason other than it's in the bible.  Thank God that someone can still look at the law without pulling the bible into the mix.\n\nI seriously think that no one ever expects the law to pass, and it is only done to make "friends" with the "moral majority".  If the Christian Right is happy, the funds keep going into the reelection accounts.  They can say "well, we tried".
21264
Good point! \nI also believe that homosexual marriages have no bearing on religion. Giving a legal marriage to a gay couple is not the same as forcing all churches in America to accept and perform the marriages. I really don't see why religion has a say in it, since I do believe in the seperation between church and state, and since no one's forcing all the religious damning homophobes to suddenly accept homosexuality. \nIt's very relatable to interracial marriages. And no it won't lead to beastiality or incest becoming legalized, since beastiality is just stupid and wrong and no one can say that one can love a cow, and incest is genetically wrong, so that won't ever be legalized either, don't give me your snowball fallacies.
550410
"The 14th amendment to the US Constitution applies equally to both gay and straight citizens.  Thus, the government does not have the right to enact laws that ban marriage between individuals based on their sexual orientation."\n\nThe 14th also bans states from enacting laws that restrict civil liberties.  Many people argue that marriage is a civil liberty.  \n\nYou can continue with the fact that we do not live in a Theocracy and under the theory of separation of church and state within the Establishment Clause (1st amendment - US Constitution) the government also has no right to impose the Biblical will of the church on the citizenry.  \n\nChurches are free to define marriage within their own systems and can certainly decline to marry same sex couples.  The government should be required to maintain a non-religious marriage system that is open and applies equally to all.
367833
Oh I'm not so sure about that! Have you read George Washington's personal history about how the Constitution came about? And what about all those Christians who left their homes for the New World so they could have freedom of religion?  \nMaybe he's still at it and people just don't want to give him credit where credit is due!
326176
Make it optional, no need to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at all, and make the "God" part optional when saying it.  I think it's more important for kids to understand the Constitutional principles for which this country is founded and is the LAW than some abstract references to what the "proper religion" was at the time of its creation.  I can't find a single reference to a "state religion" in that or any document, including all the articles of confederation.  All I see is that Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion or the free excercise thereof.\n\nMeaning to me that people are freely allowed to excercise their right or abstain from referring to God or Gods in a public forum.  On another note, I don't want any reference to religion in school, that's what the home, church, and parental responsibility are for.  If a religious group wants to meet after school, go for it, but don't make it compulsory or degrading.
32386
Republicans.  I'm laughing at the answer before me (first answer, there might be more by the time I post).  The democrats have constantly tried to make the constitution something it is not.  For example, "seperation of church and state."  Democrats actually have us all believing that this is in the constitution!  It is not!  The only thing the constitution forbids is a state church, where the President of the United States would be like the pope of the church.  In fact, if you read the all the commentary that the founding fathers left for us, Christianity was always meant to be a big part of the government.  Republicans are not trying to take rights away.  Homosexual acts used to be a crime.  Some day there will be a march for the rights of child molesters under the same arguments, "we can't help it, we were born this way...  love is never wrong, etc."  If republicans try and oppose that I suppose we will be "taking their rights away," too?  Somethings needed to change.  Slavery definately needed to be abolished.  The civil rights movements of the 60's needed to happen.  These were people that were not given equality based solely on skin color.  I would extend that to homosexuals and those that find children attractive to this point: you may not be able to control what or who you find attractive, but you CAN control your actions.  We also don't throw people in jail because they THINK about killing someone.  Homosexuality is not the same as race.  There is ACTION that takes place before it becomes wrong.  Laws can legislate action.  \n\nAs far as abortion rights, read the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade and read the ammendment that originally allowed slavery.  The wording is so similiar it will make you sick.  If there is any question about whether or not a fetus is a human life or not, shouldn't we say no to killing it?  \n\nIt is time to stop "interpreting" the constitution to please every sick-o with a "cause," and preserve the nation that our forefathers built by preserving the constitution.  That means actually reading the constitution, reading the letters, speaches and earliest judicial decisions, and not being afraid to do what they did, and look to the Bible as a rule of law.
289620
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
365364
I like it....a great thought experiment!\nWhich is more important to the people who are, for instance, willing to vote for a *constitutional amendment* for godsake to restrict freedoms in this country by saying we as a nation claim that the pursuit of domestic happiness must occur only between people with the appropriately different genitals.  The kinds of genitals that can together make babies. sometimes unwanted babies. Those folks want to make pursuit of happiness restricted.  Okay.  I'd love to see the poll numbers on how many of them would also like to have "the right to life" of the fetus trump the "right to liberty" of the adult female.  It's doubtlessly true that if gay marriage were legal everywhere and rights and equal status were conveyed to gay couples, then there would be more newly 'appropriate' homes for kids saved from being aborted by those heterosexual breeding pairs conservatives would like to limit marriage rights to.\nBut of course, the folks who tend to vehemently oppose abortion likely wouldn't be too pleased with gay couples getting babies to raise.  \nWhat's interesting, really, is how many non-conservative types are against gay marriage but against limiting abortion rights.  So, the right of someone to end a pregnancy falls under her rights to privacy and control over her body, but the right of someone to fall in love with and pledge to be partner to another person is subject to government approval.  I understand all the 'get the government off my body" stuff in the abortion wars, but the anti-gay-marriage thing for non-conservatives seems to me mostly about an 'eww' factor.
650045
Many voters and politicians are being bigots.  I have listened to radio talk shows and read tons of stuff on the Internet, and I have yet to see or hear an argument for banning gay marriage that makes sense to me.  I am a Christian.  I am against persecuting others and I expect to be persecuted.  Gay people being allowed to get married is not going to affect my heterosexual marriage one bit.  It is not going to affect my childrens' world views, but thinking that HATE is OK because it's officially sanctioned by the government might.  Let the church do as it will, but the state needs to allow minorities their basic civil rights.
441249
The Christian point of view varies, though fundamentalists won't tell you that.  My Church supports gay marriage, so do many others. \n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com\n\nPS In response to the person who answered directly above my answer.  Your answer is meaningless of course, if the Bible is not really divine and not the central foundation of Christianity.\n\nThe canon of the Bible was not formalized until the Council of Carthage -- when it affirmed a resolution of the synod of Hippo recognizing a group of books drawn together and claimed as divine by Bishop Anathasius.  Anathasius did not even coin the word canon until 327  and the Council of Carthage did not formalize the list approved by Hippo until the 390s, and then sent it on to "the Church across the sea" (Rome) for the Pope's approval.\n\nThere are no full copies of what is now considered scripture until the 4th century.  There are two copies from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) together with hundreds of manuscript fragments of various forms (Papyrus and Vellum Manuscripts and Vellum Palimpsests).  Overall there are over 5000 copies of at least part of the present canonical Bible that are from the sixth century or earlier.  These range from a few verses to whole books, to Bibles that were read in churches.  According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost experts in the world on Textual criticism and Textual reconstruction, those manuscripts have between them at least 200,000 differences.  Some of those differences are minor, or meaningless -- but some are very important and would change core Christian doctrines like the Virgin birth
624676
I support governmental recognition of all marriages performed by recognized religious group, adn that is the secret about the gay marriage question.\n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faiths, which say it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nSince I do not believe the government should be used to control religious belief -- I think that the government should recognize gay marriage, when performed by members of clergy -- and should create a civil union equivalent for those interested only in secular marriage.\n\nOtherwise we should stop saying we don't have an establishment of religion.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com
73417
You can marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, while they can't. Laws against same-sex marriage impose an arbitrary, and essentially religious view of marriage on people who do not believe in it, for no reason other than to maintain the status quo. It is ridiculous to say that you have the same rights because you can't marry someone of the same sex either; you obviously don't want to.
286807
Interesting point.  The 9th was put forth to clarify that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  \n\nSo in this case, saying the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage is a moot point.  \n\nThe 14th says, in part, "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nSo it could be interpreted that "equal protection" would apply to those legal rights regarding heterosexual marriage as being equally applied to gay marriage. \n\nI'm not a legal scholar (obviously), but I see your point.
148026
Wow there are alot of choices that have different views. Not sure what you are looking for but here are some debates:\n\nAbortion, gays adopting, spanking children, immigrants, etc. \n\nI will still think about this one and get back to you.\n\n\nETA: Polygamy, Same sex marriages