Federal Marriage Amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crusader

Guest
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) as a proposed constitutional amendment, which will remove the definition of marriage from the reach of all legislatures and courts permanently.

This amendment simply states:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"

Do you think this has any chance of being passed? Do you want it to be passed? I really don’t like tinkering with the constitution, but this seems like an important enough reason to do just that…
 
I think that it has a chance to be passed, polls have shown that on average over 55% of Americans oppose homosexual marriage. It will be tough though because we will all look like bigots and we will be persecuted for it. Hope it works.
 
I believe that the power of my marriage does not come from the US Constitution, or my state government; the power of my marriage comes from the 3 people in it-me, my wife and Jesus Christ. So, it really doesn’t matter what the government does-it won’t affect my marriage.

If we really want to do something to defend marriage, why not an amendment ending divorce and premarital sex? It seems the greatest threat to marriage is heterosexuals. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
trucatholic:
I believe that the power of my marriage does not come from the US Constitution, or my state government; the power of my marriage comes from the 3 people in it-me, my wife and Jesus Christ. So, it really doesn’t matter what the government does-it won’t affect my marriage.

If we really want to do something to defend marriage, why not an amendment ending divorce and premarital sex? It seems the greatest threat to marriage is heterosexuals. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Debasing the sanctity of marriage by allowing two people of the same sex to get “married” does nothing to strengthen the sacrament. The Church is crystal clear on this issue – marriage is between a man, a woman and God. This ammendment would simply be a practical means to help protect this sacred covenant.

ALso, no law could be enacted that would end premarital sex – it’s foolish to suggest that is possible. Likewise, in practical terms, no law could be enacted that would force people to say married – except in the most theoretical of viewpoints.
 
This issue is typical of where our country is heading. Marriage is the pillar of society and how society is sustained. For Catholics it is more than a civil union, it’s a Sacrament.

I too do not like amending the constitution, however this one is needed. Thirty years ago, the morality of this country would have laughed at the notion of gay marriage. Today, we’ve slipped so far down the “Slippery Slope” of moral decay that we’ve actually alowed a few Judges in Mass. to redefine what marriage for the entire country. Fast forward thirty years in the future–what do you see? I hate to even think about the messages we are sending our next generation of society.

Here’s an example:

A scene at a City Hall

“Next.”

“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay."
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve
been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want
to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?”

“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.
All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our
sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s
just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The
more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage
license!”

“All right, all right. Next.”

“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

And liberals ask why we say, “God Bless America.”
 
Response to TruCatholic

While heterosexuals have done many things destructive to marriage, they are not the greatest threat to marriage. Unfortuantely, the culture tells us that virtually anything goes, and the same sex marriage argument is simply more of the same.

Your marriage may not be directly impacted by the acceptance of same sex marriages, but over time the institution of marriage will suffer. The Scandanavian countries are a great example of what happens after accepting gay marriage. After the initial rush of gay marriages things took an interesting turn. After approximately ten years of this errant experiment, gays like to point out that everyone is happy and that the divorce rate is down. Yes, the divorce rate has declined, but so has the rate of marriage. Most people in these countries are now simply shacking up. Gay marriage is bad in and of itself, and it is detrimental to society as a whole.

Heterosexual sin and divorce are problems as well, but at least neither of these is used as a basis for an organized effort to redefine marriage. Redefining marriage beyond “the union of a man and a woman” is the equivalent of redefining any other truth into something it is not.

If we cannot have the truth then what will we have? Our society is systematically exchanging the truth for a lie and that will ultimately have devastating effects for all of us. While it may not affect our immediate situation, it will have ramifications for our children and for future generations thereafter.
 
Marriage is the basic building block of society, as goes marriage so goes the rest of society. If homosexual “marriage” is allowed by America, or John Kerry is elected (which amounts to the same thing) America will cease to exist as a world power, due to the colapse of society.
 
I think, for our purposes, as Catholics, the Federal Marriage Amendment is irrelevant. The church doesn’t even recognize civil heterosexual unions. This amendment is all about politics.

I’m not opposed to it; in fact, any salvo against the cheapening of marriage is OK by me.

From a civil-law standpoint, it seems to me, marriage is a legal contract designed, primarily, to protect any offspring from that union. Homosexual unions, by nature, do not produce offspring. So, the purpose of legalizing such a union seems to me not a little absurd.
 
True that they don’t produce offspring, but what about adoption, I don’t know about letting homosexual couples adopt children because once they allow that then “why cant we get married?” Plus how well adjusted will the kids be?
 
some things i would like to add, one is that a report says that the scandinavian rates of marriage and divorce have remained the same since the enactment laws. secondly that if elected kerry has already said he is against gay marriage (and even if he truly did believe in it we wouldnt dare endorse it lest he commit political suicide) and also whats the point of adding an amendment? the supreme court may just overthrow it anyways, like it has the rest of the constituion, and even having state laws on the issue are probably not right since marriage is a religous issue, not an issue of government, if in fact marriage and government had nothing to do with each other, than simply there would be no one even suggesting gay marriage since the the gays simply want to be married for income and benefit purposes.
 
40.png
NickFrance:
This issue is typical of where our country is heading. Marriage is the pillar of society and how society is sustained. For Catholics it is more than a civil union, it’s a Sacrament.

I too do not like amending the constitution, however this one is needed. Thirty years ago, the morality of this country would have laughed at the notion of gay marriage. Today, we’ve slipped so far down the “Slippery Slope” of moral decay that we’ve actually alowed a few Judges in Mass. to redefine what marriage for the entire country. Fast forward thirty years in the future–what do you see? I hate to even think about the messages we are sending our next generation of society.

Here’s an example:

A scene at a City Hall

“Next.”

“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay."
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve
been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want
to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?”

“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.
All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our
sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s
just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The
more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage
license!”

“All right, all right. Next.”

“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

And liberals ask why we say, “God Bless America.”
Click to expand...
LOL…marrying yourself? Hmmmm, would that marriage last?
 
Does anyone know if there is a place that we can go to show support for this Amendment?

Like a web page where we can all sign.
 
Sorry about the “abc” post - I wrote a long one and it didn’t post so I wanted to be sure before I tried again -

To trucatholic and the many other Catholic that think similarly:

You are correct that we must do all that we can to reduce the tragedy of divorce. Further, we must do all that we can to lessen sin for it hurts the world, the Church, and the sinner. However, as we live in a free society in which our voiced opinions can shape public policy (if all Catholics voiced true Catholic teaching, policy would be shaped properly), we must stand against the legalization of gravely immoral institutions and acts - otherwise we will have to explain why we did not to Jesus at judgement. Simply saying “it did not affect me” will not suffice.

Further, clearly the leadership of the homosexual movement is diametrically opposed to Christian values and priniciples. If we continue to “play dead” when policy is being shaped so that more and more “rights” are granted to such an institution that promotes actions opposed to nature itself, we will see our ability and freedom to worship, evangelize, and educate our children erode faster than you may ever imagine. These institutions will continue to gain money, positions, and power and will generally oppose followers of Christ. If we continue in silence, we will be culpable of contributing to a world is which it is more difficult than ever to become and stay a Christian. **This is no legacy to pass on to anyone’s children. **

“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33)

Peace in Christ
 
I think marriage should be a religious ceremony only. Why does the government have to license it? My cousin got pg while engaged. She had a marriage ceremony in the Church, and then became legally married after the baby was born. Which day is her anniversary? It seems to me that legalizing marriage at all is what corrupts it. I say leave it the Church’s that see it as Sacramental. Everyone else can just live together since most of them do it that way anyway. What do you all think?

Love,
Annie
 
If you want to support any petitions that are offered, just sign up at American Family Association (afa.net/) and they will send you the link to petition sites. They also send canned e-mails that you can send to your congressmen with a click of the mouse.
 
40.png
AnnieM:
I think marriage should be a religious ceremony only. Why does the government have to license it?
Click to expand...
Marriage exists prior to the government. The government recognizes the marriage because it is the male-female relationship that produces progeny. This means that certain legal questions pertaining to structuring our society for the benefit of children must be established in law. The government does not recognize marriage in order to sanction a particular relationship between the participating parties.

One might argue that other means exist whereby children may be produced. In addition to illegitimacy, which has always been with us, there are also artificial means of conception. First, let’s consider illegitimacy. This describes a situation where a male and female produce children outside the marriage bond. In other words, the couple made decisions irrespective of the social order. This case is thus distinct from the case of marriage because in marriage a couple is committed to operating within the social order.

Now, consider artifical conception, surrogacy, adoption, etc. These are also readily distinguishable from the marriage bond. In the case of surrogacy, there is a legal contract that establishes a contractual relationship that is nothing like a marriage bond. Artificial conception is also ontologically different from sexual reproduction, thus requireing a different treatment in law. In this case, medical professionals are involved in the process, donors may be used, etc. There are laws to cover these situations. Likewise, there are laws to cover adoption.

In no homosexual relationship does the physical intercourse between partners generate a child. There may be artifical conception, surrogacy, adoption, etc., but these are covered by a different set of laws from those governing a marital relationship. The application of laws governing artifical conception, surrogacy, adoption, etc. to homosexuals is a debate separate from (but related to) the gay marriage debate.

By creating “homosexual marriage” in law as an institution equivalent to heterosexual marriage, the Massachusetts court changed the purpose of state-recognized marriage. Prior to the decision, the purpose of state recognition of marriage was not the sanctioning of particular relationships. After the decision, procreation was decoupled from what is now called “marriage” in Massachusetts. That which the state calls marriage is merely a certification of an adult relationship.

So for those of us who say the state should not be in the business of “regulating the bedroom,” it is the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court that made “marriage” law about sanctioning particular relationships rather than the necessary ordering of our society.
 
40.png
Crusader:
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) as a proposed constitutional amendment, which will remove the definition of marriage from the reach of all legislatures and courts permanently.

This amendment simply states:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"

Do you think this has any chance of being passed? Do you want it to be passed? I really don’t like tinkering with the constitution, but this seems like an important enough reason to do just that…
Click to expand...
The amendment will pass, and it has my total support! :amen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top