Federal Marriage Amendment?

[pittsburghjeff]

I strongly support the marriage amendment, although I should point out that it will still allow state legislatures to create favored “civil unions” if they so choose. It would at least prohibit the courts from forcing civil unions on the the people.

I think it is a crying shame that we have to “write out” of the constitution a right to homosexual marriage which isn’t in the constitution to begin with. However, our judicial system has run amuck and if we don’t pass a federal marriage amendment ASAP then the judges will force gay marriage throughout the land.

 

[kenmraz]

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.

<snip…>
Here’s an example:

A scene at a City Hall

<snip…>
And liberals ask why we say, “God Bless America.”

They can ask, but we know the answer: because in its current condition, America needs it now more than ever. I found your article to have a wry humor, but unfortunately, it is probably too accurate if the people of this country do nothing.

I contacted both of my senators about a month or so ago expressing my support for the amendment. I was saddened by their responses: “no need to update the Constitution” and “it should be left to the states”. Sorry, but I disagree. Some good resources to refute these nonsensical arguments can be found at:

limandrilaw.com/FSL5CS/Custom/custom3.asp

[link below is a Real Player media stream]
radio.catholic.com:8080/ramgen/catholic/radio/calive/2004/ca040206.rm
Too bad the politicians won’t listen. They think everything is relative and individual choice, since that gets them the most votes. I wonder if any of these people lie awake at night wrestling with their conscience, or if they just sleep like rocks. I have trouble sleeping sometimes after losing my patience and giving my son a timeout. How they can support some of the things they support and sleep at night defies my imagination.

In Christ,

Ken

 

[kenmraz]

crimson dragon:

… also whats the point of adding an amendment? the supreme court may just overthrow it anyways, like it has the rest of the constituion,…

The Supreme Court cannot throw out any portion of the Constitution. All it can do is judge if laws ARE Constitutional, i.e., legal when interpreted according to the Constitution. They cannot overrule it. All of the crazy stuff going on now is based on the idea that “this” or “that” is something protected by the Constitution. If it explicitly says that “this” is not only NOT protected, but is actually the antithesis of something that IS protected or defined by the Constitution, the Supreme Court can’t do anything about it. If it could have, then theoretically the Supreme Court could rule that slavery was once again legal.

I’ll admit that they pulled a number when they legalized abortion. It is too bad that there was not a big outcry when that happened. Imagine if there had been and the Constitution had been amended to more explicitly define a person as “any being of human origin”. If that had occurred, we would not have the horrible tragedy of abortion or be facing the problems with cloning and stem cell research. The definition would be short, concise and most importantly there would be no wiggle room in the definition of what a person is.

God bless,

Ken

 

[Crusader]

AnnieM:

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

Marriage is far more than a “ceremony” in the Church. It’s one of the seven sacraments…

 

[Crusader]

Crusader:

Marriage is far more than a “ceremony” in the Church. It’s one of the seven sacraments…

Matrimony is definately NOT a “sacramental”, but a sacrament.

 

[AnnieM]

Yes, Crusadrer, I know that marriage is a Sacrament! And I meant sacramental as an adjective as in “a sacramental marriage.” Most Christian don’t have sacramental marriage, or, they don’t call it a Sacrament like we do. My brother’s father-in-law is a Presbyterian Minister. He says he preforms marriage ceremonies for the State. In saying that marriage was a religious ceremony, I was trying to include all religions, not just those that see it as a Sacrament. I’d like this to be a seperation of religion and state issue, but a previous poster already explained to me why this can’t happen.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough for you

Love,
Annie

 

[rfk]

crimson dragon:

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.

Well, the report is inaccurate or deliberately biased.

Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, recently testified on this issue to Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Here is his Congressional testimony:

house.gov/judiciary/kurtz042204.htm

He also wrote an article called The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
crimson dragon:

secondly that if elected kerry has already said he is against gay marriage

Yeah, and you actually believe him? Look, we all know that the militant homosexual lobby is active, organized and strong within the Democratic Party. Kerry will “go with the flow”.

 

[Brad]

For all of those concerned about making a separation of Church and State, let me make something very clear:

There is no phrase anywhere in the constitution that talks about a separation of the Church and the State. It does not exist - this is a dream that just about everyone talks about as a reality. If you do not believe me, read the constitution.

What the constitution does say is that the government cannot impose a national religion on the states and that the goverment cannot interfere with the religous freedom of the people.

Christianity has and should heavily influence laws and public policy. The Founding Fathers used Christianity and the Bible as their basis for designing the government and it’s laws and moral code. Because of these Christian principles, all are still allowed to worship as they please, be they Jews or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist.

What the government CANNOT do, is to codify laws that restrict or eliminate our right to practice religion, such as not allowing us to pray or display the commandments in public places, or not allowing us to say “under God” in the Pledge.

When judges requires us as a society to accept homosexual “marriage” and all the societal impact that comes with this acceptance, these judges are codifying their religious views into the law - this is what is forbidden.

You may say these judges are making a non-religious or anti-religous argument. You would be incorrect. Religion is also “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion”. If your devotion is to anti-Christianity, or the homosexual agenda, or atheism, then you have a religion - you have a life philosophy just as impacting on your life as any organized religion would be. A judge, acting on such a philosphy, is imposing his or her beliefs on society and is not following the will, law, or foundational principles on which this country is founded. He or she is, in effect, imposing elements of a religion on the people and, as a result, intefering with the religious freedom of the people.

 

[SHEMP]

AnnieM:

Why does the government have to license it?

This is the question! Better yet: Why should the government license marraige?

I would frame debate around the nature of friendships. Is there a reason that government should sanction or promote certain kinds of friendships? Does government have a duty to promote relationships that lead to the procreation of children? Should government hold friends that have children responsible for the wellfare of their children? Should they be even more proactive in promoting a stable family environment for these children?

I agree with you that there is little reason for government to sanction friendships that cannot procreate (whether homo or hetero).

 

[AnnieM]

Ooooo, Shemp! You’ve really given me something to ponder. Honestly, I think the courts are all mucked and muddled up because of licensing “marriage”. Without “civil” marriage, there would be no divorce court. People would have to dissolve (annul) a marriage based on the laws of their religion. Hmmm, makes one think…

Love,
Annie

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

Government has no place in pronouncing two (or more) people married. This is only under our purview.

Government marriage ceremonies are unconstitutional under the “seperation of church and state” dogma the seKKKularists are pushing. Remember, we don’t have government done baptisms, circumcisions, etc, right? Why this religious ritual is done by the government?

 

[SHEMP]

BobCatholic:

Government has no place in pronouncing two (or more) people married. QUOTE]

Government does have the right to make laws concerning the wellfare of children. They can make laws that promote the family unit. This is a very secular goal.

 

[BobCatholic]

SHEMP:

Government does have the right to make laws concerning the wellfare of children. They can make laws that promote the family unit. This is a very secular goal.

They can do this without creating secular marriages. Leave the creation of marriages to the church.

 

[SHEMP]

BobCatholic:

They can do this without creating secular marriages.

Call it what you like?!

 

[BobCatholic]

SHEMP:

Call it what you like?!

Maybe I’m not making myself clear on what I’m talking about.

People can go in front of a judge, justice of the peace, or certain government officials and be declared married - by the government!

We don’t have people baptized by a judge, etc.

We don’t have people circumcised…

But for some reason, one religious ritual, a marriage, can be done by the government.

In this way, the government should stay out of the marriage-making business. Leave that to the church.

 

[SHEMP]

BobCatholic:

We don’t have people circumcised…

There are probably more secular/medical circumcisions than religious circumcisions.

I don’t have time to think about it right now but I suspect that there are many secular “rituals” that started in religion.

The point is that you don’t even need to argue marraige on religious grounds. It can be argued on Natural Law theory. It is important to be able to argue this issue both from a religous aspect but also from a secular point of view.

 

[Brad]

BOBCatholic, SHEMP, and AnnieM -

Whether or not the government should be involved in marriage law, they ARE involved in marriage law and this will not change for a variety of complicated reasons. What we DO have the power to influence is how the government defines such marriage, which is a critical issue that we must take an active interest in as free citizens and Christians. What the state says is ok influences the behavior of groups within the state and if this behavior is sinful, then it affects salvation of these people. As Christians, we are called to care about the salvation of all. A “forget them” attitude is NOT part of the gospel and further, sin affects everyone.

For example, you cannot say I will not denounce a murder just because the owner of the store that was murdered never should have had a store in a bad neighborhood to begin with. Murder is wrong and should be illegal. Gay “marriage” and the perversion of the marriage act is wrong and should be illegal.

 

[saintjoseph71]

God created marriage, not man (see Genesis 2:24). In order to pass, the country needs to get away from moral relativism (which says, truth is relative to your own opinion) and get back to Objective truths (which says truth is unchanging, the source of this unchanging truth, is God Himself!). So, if God created marriage to be one man and one woman, we cannot change this!
To see what God feels about the homosexual or lesbian ACT, far from being a marital one, read: Genesis 19: 5-14, Romans 1:25-28, 32, I Cor. 6: 9-11, and I Tim. 1: 8-10. Peace.

 

[kenmraz]

<snip…>
He or she is, in effect, imposing elements of a religion on the people and, as a result, intefering with the religious freedom of the people.

Amen to that! But has anyone ever noticed that the people who tell you you are a bigot or some other nasty label typically hold a much more bigoted and hostile view to you than you do to them? Or that you can’t impose your religion on them, but oh boy are they happy to tell you what to do and how to behave? Or is it just me?

 

[BobCatholic]

Brad:

Whether or not the government should be involved in marriage law, they ARE involved in marriage law and this will not change for a variety of complicated reasons.

There’s a difference between “involved in marriage law” and declaring people marriages.

Government should NOT be in the business of declaring people married. That is under the purview of religion. Seperation of church and state means this is not allowed. Government cannot do things under the purview of religion.

No state prayers. Fine. No state marriage also.

Take away the government’s right to declare marriage - that is a huge smackdown in the “gay marriage” movement.

Hey, I’m proposing a solution here, why the resistance?