The marriage amendment?
485873
Canada may have passed that law when they had Liberal leadership. I have heard that a new law is already in the works by the Conservatives to change that law.\n\nBut back to the US\n\nWe cannot have an amendment to the Constitution legalizing the marriage of homosexuals. It goes against the Bible!!!\nEver heard of Saddam and Gomorrah???
221708
Oh Big Deal! Two people decide that they want to have something going on & the Goverment steps in & say's that's a big NO-NO... & at the same time the very Goverment that's supposedly watching to protect our Rights as (American Citizens) deny the two people theire individual & Constitional Right to freedom/s of expression. Marriage is something that man created-what two or three hundred years ago, & somehow it's related to the Church??? We as Good American Citizens have many Constitutional Rights to Excersize at will. & the Church thing is suppose to be a seperate issue other then those that threaten our very exsistance of haveing these liberties. Church & states Issues should never interfere W/each other about codes of conduct/s or Constitutionalities because they are seperate. It's alway's been legal to Marry anyone because of our Freedom/s  Of  Choices written In The U.S. Constitution, & not what some hang-up that some church has on someone. Where is the wheel of shame,when it's no-one's fault for doing the right thing w/someone? I liked your question because, alot of people have been fooled by the states taht say no.
80977
They are people correct? Are we not all entitled to certian unalienable rights? The constitution protect everyones rights regardless of race creed or orentation.\n\nAs far as marrage goes why not,it is more of a sosciety issue not a right or legal issue, it is not really covered under the constitution.
1056045
It's always amused me to hear people argue for laws protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, completely forgetting that anything that "sanctity" is an inherently religious issue.\n\nThe Marriage Protection Amendment is designed to enforce one particular religion's definition of marriage, just because that religion happens to be in the legislative majority at the moment. \n\nEvery single argument in favor of limiting marriage boils down to a religious disapproval of certain types of relationships. And for some reason, the religious majority doesn't see any problem with enforcing their moral beliefs as a matter of law, because they happen to be in the majority.\n\nIf they really want a uniform definition of marriage, I've got one that will make everyone happy. How about  a Constitutional Amendment that (1) eliminates the term "marriage" from any secular laws, making "marriage" only a religious term, and (2) converts all of what used to be marriages to "civil unions", and (3) allows any two consenting adults to register their civil union with the state, and get all state benefits that would otherwise be provided to people who were married.\n\nAny two consenting adults who want to get a civil union can do so, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether incest should or should not be allowed, so let's just say not allowed for purposes of this proposal.\n\nIf people want to get married, that's between them and their church. The "sanctity of marriage" is thus forever protected against government meddling, since "marriage" no longer has any legal meaning under the law. \n\nAnd gay couples now are treated no differently under the law than anyone else, since everyone 'only' gets a civil union, as far as the law is concerned.\n\nIf the big issue is regarding terminology and the sanctity of the term "marriage", then religious folk should be completely in favor of this amendment. It guarantees that they can have the term "marriage" all to themselves, based on whatever their religion defines it to be, without any trouble from those equal protection advocates.\n\nAnd if this doesn't solve the problem, then their argument isn't really about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" at all. It's just that they don't like certain behavior because it is against their religious beliefs, and they want to be able to enforce those religious beliefs as a matter of law.
931321
yes! ~ I agree! ~ Marriage is sacred and shouldn't be changed to conform to those who want to make it less than what it is.  If they want a civil union with the same benefits as marriage, fine.  But marriage shouldn't be changed.  And this has nothing to do with the bible ~ this is about the tradition and the meaning of marriage.
1099672
When hate-mongering 'christian' bigots stop campaigning against basic equal rights.  \nWhen you, and others like you, start demanding that your representatives remove all barriers to two people in love being able to marry.\nWhen New York upholds the founding principle of the separation of church and state this country was founded on.\n\nIn short, hopefully soon!  :o)
89150
The passing of a Constitutional amendment is neither moral nor immoral. The issues the amendment deals with, however, is.\n\nMost of our entire codification of laws and judicial system is based on morals. It is immoral to murder. It is immoral to rape. It is immoral to kidnap. I think we all agree that these crimes are wrong both legally and morally.\n\nThere are plenty of issues of morality that the law deals with that we might agree on. In several states, sodomy is illegal. Drug use is illegal. Minors buying tobacco is illegal. Are these issues morally wrong? A good debate with arguments from each side could be made.\n\nOn to Constitutional amendments. The Constitution creates and protects our beliefs as a country. Amendment 13 bans slavery. Amendment 14 banned ex-Conferates from holding national office. Article 18 banned alcohol in the US and Article 21 repealed it. All of these amendments (and many more) deal with moral issues that we, as a society, have decided are either right or wrong.\n\nConstitutional amendment are designed to deal with more specific issues rather than broad issues, and the specific areas you discuss are prime areas for a Constitutional amendment. That is why is it so important that the country has intelligent discourse from citizens involved in the political process. Find out about the issue, make up your mind, and fight for what you believe is right.
149141
Totally against it. Where does one stop in the changing of the meaning of marriage. If gays can have the right to marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not be able to have two wives? Four wives? Why not be able to marry a 7 year old? Why not be able to marry a dead person? Why not an animal? Where does it stop once you begin the trek down that slippery slope?\n\nMarriage is a sacred rite derived from religion. I know you liberal secularists hate to hear that, but it is true. Most religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.\n\nJust one man's opinion.
107314
Why not?  But the churches will still publicly fight it just for calling it marriage.  I say let people do what they want and just fix the issue with the benefits problem so it's not abused, and totally ignore the churches just like they totally ignore facts and science and other opinions.
784935
it will only be a matter of time, but we will eventually earn equal rights!  if 2 consenting, unrelated adults want to marry, they should have that right!  is shouldn't matter their gender, race, religion or culture.  my partner and I are registered domestic partners, and we've had a commitment ceremony....but we want the real thing!  along with the legal benefits of marriage!   I mean, seriously, it can't harm anyone!  and we can't do any worse than straight people do!  \nI challenge anyone to come up with a legitimate reason..WITHOUT stating any religious reason or the typical "because your sick pervs" or similar garbage!  \nthere have been plenty of other discriminatory laws that have been over-turned in this country...because they were wrong!...this one will be over-turned as well!
985932
MARRIED PERSON HAS RIGHT TO MARRY.
838322
The law should be upheld as it stands... Church and state SHOULD STAY separated. The constitution clearly states that ALL men are created equal... Not STRAIGHT men are created equal. I think EVERYONE should get a chance to marry the person of their choosing and it's prejudice to say they can't. It's unfair. What if the world were based on homosexual relationships and the heterosexuals weren't allowed to marry? They would feel the SAME way about it. People who believe that marriage is only a union for heterosexuals are extreme bigots and shouldn't be allowed to have a say in it.
723066
Doesn't it bother you the word "marriage" was coined by people over 2000 years ago as a union between and a man and a woman?  It doesn't bother you that a group of people want to change the definitions of words more then 2000 years old just to suit their individual needs?  Even Bush has suggested these people should have all the same rights, but the word is founded in religion and its definition should not be changed to suit the needs of a radical few.
330580
GOOD BYE "LAUNCH".  I believe that same sex marriages should be outlawed by the Supreme Court.  And since Conservatives now have a majority on the bench I believe it will happen.
689375
The constitution does NOT define marriage, or even address it. You can look at the constitutions of individual states such as Alaska, Alabama, New Jersey, Vermont, etc. As for "societal" norms, I suggest you go to the periodicals section of your library and look at wedding announcements, etc. Look closely at the constitution of the state of Alabama and you can see where amendments were added to refuse interracial marriage (and they are not repealed even today!). Georgia is the same, but theirs is repealed.
727786
DOMA is effectively useless and invalid now, because it is a direct constitutional violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.\n\nThe Constitution guarantees that a legal status recognized by the courts in one state must be recognized by any other state. The only reason DOMA hasn't been challenged yet is because no same-sex married couple has tried to move from a Massachussettes to another state and demand that state recognize the marriage.\n\nThat's only a matter of time, especially when other states begin to allow same-sex marriages.
850864
Congrats on coming out!!...Although I totally agree with gay people being allowed to marry, we have to examine the political climate of what we're dealing with.  Anytime another group is pushed into a corner they are gonna be on the defensive.  This is what's happening with gay marriage.  Christians (being riled up by the Republicans) feel it's an attack on the "sanctity" of marriage.  I won't even try to get into all the ironies of that statement, but it is in fact how they feel.  The gay community feels that a fundamental right is being taken away and so the push for legalized marriage intensifies.  \n\nThe only solution for this situation is for the gay community to back off for "marriage" and to push for civil unions.  Having all the same legal rights, benefits, and legal consequences (divorce) as marriage..but not calling it marriage.  This would be a true separation of church and state, it would ease the Christians minds of marriage being on the attack and essentially take away any arguing points on the issue. It would allow the gay community to benefit form what straight people have been enjoying for centuries.\n\nUnfortunately we live in such a political charged atmosphere that such compromises have to made to get a solution.  It isn't necessarily right...but it's the best way for us to realistically achieve our goal of legal rights.  If the marriage push continues by the gay community it's only going to cause increased tensions  and our ability to enjoy equal rights will be a long time away.