Would you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage?

[George_Stegmeir]

I think it’s actually about imposing specific moral values held by certain religions on the whole country. Why not constitutionally ban adultery and divorce as well, and enforce the blue laws on a national level, including selling alcohol on Sundays? We live in a pluralistic society composed of different religious groups and moral values. The prohibition against murder is for the common good of all, but I don’t think any equally powerful case can be made for same-sex marriage, no stronger than a constitutional amendment banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, for example.

I agree with you 100% Marriage laws are best handled on the State level, which was established by our Founding Fathers. Bear in mind that no one, since Lincoln has attained the stature of any of the Founding Fathers, except, perhaps, FDR’s leadership during WW II.
Like it or not, making marriager an issue of the Constitution would only open the door toa more odious power grab by the Federal Government. No government should have any power in the bed room, except where public health and safety are concerned, as in the case of prostitution and the sexual exploitation of children.

 

[livingwordunity]

It wouldn’t be a matter of “banning” gay marriage, but simply of affirming what marriage is. A marital relationship by nature includes sexual complementarity. It has been so since the beginning of civilization. I wouldn’t call it the banning of anything, just a restoration of reason.

 

[Neofight]

I am against same sex marriage but the premise of the question is absolutely ridiculous. It would be as effective as a constitutional amendment outlawing sin.

 

[livingwordunity]

“Gay” activists reject traditional marriage but want their relationship to be called the same thing as what they reject. It makes no sense.

 

[Catholic1954]

Evening, everyone. I heard about the senator from Kansas and other desires to want a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the wake of the DOMA ruling last month and I’m just curious to see what CAF would think should such a thing ever surface. Unlikely, but anything is possible.

Good luck with that. Here in California, the citizens passed a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and the US Supreme Court threw it out. Banning gay marriage won’t be allowed on the federal level either.

 

[VanSensei]

I am against same sex marriage but the premise of the question is absolutely ridiculous. It would be as effective as a constitutional amendment outlawing sin.

Hey, it happened in Arizona.

AND I asked this question because such a thing will probably pop up soon. It has enough traction to get somewhere in the legislature.

 

[Neildown]

Civil law is about imposing someone’s moral values on all of society. Laws mean that people can go to jail or worse for not complying with them. Making so-called “same-sex marriage” the law is an imposition of someone’s moral values since it is a way of the government using legal force to strong arming people into accepting the idea that marriage can be redefined. The Catholic Church has always been against adultery or divorce. As a matter of fact, Catholics in America fought against so-called the “no fault divorce” law. And another point is that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept an invalid marriage between two heterosexuals either. And Catholics weren’t trying to make homosexual behavior illegal before this so-called “same-sex marriage” debate. So there’s no singling out of homosexuals. The “gay” activists are the ones who picked this fight with those of us who believe that marriage is a God-created and not a man-made institution. In other words, the “gay” activists threw the first punch.

The problem I see with this is that it isn’t at all compatible with a free nation’s policies. I see these issues as cultural ones meant to be dealt with outside of laws and prohibitions - taking the reigns over other people’s beliefs on this issue will only cause more unneeded division between Catholics and non-Catholics. In allowing same sex marriage there really isn’t anything to be gained or lost by the Church as far as I can see, because the Church doesn’t perform same-sex marriages and America as a nation does not owe tribute to the Church, being independent of religious institutions and all.

Using laws to combat this issue, in my view, will only betray the Church in the end for the fact that it will be regarded as religious oppression (and technically would be if not given a good enough secular argument). Individuals need to get out and educate people on how and why we believe what we believe, and beautifully that is something that can be done within the context of our Constitution whilst neither lording ourselves over others or rescinding the Church’s authority. Whilst we do have an obligation to voice our beliefs, one walks a thin line in forcing other people to do what one believes through legislation, especially in the context of religion and morals. I recall Jesus and the Apostles telling us to go out and spread the word - not to rely on state authority to conform society to God’s teachings.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I voted yes, BUT…

that is only based off of what people commonly think of when they hear “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”. To avoid having the government enforce something non-existent to the moral destruction of society, I think it is necessary. But at the same time I have a hard time being against something that doesn’t or can’t exist. I mean, what’s the point?

 

[migueltojose]

I think it’s actually about imposing specific moral values held by certain religions on the whole country. Why not constitutionally ban adultery and divorce as well, and enforce the blue laws on a national level, including selling alcohol on Sundays? We live in a pluralistic society composed of different religious groups and moral values. The prohibition against murder is for the common good of all, but I don’t think any equally powerful case can be made for same-sex marriage, no stronger than a constitutional amendment banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, for example.

You are right, but, it’s a hypothetical question… it wouldn’t become a constitutional amendment without overwhelming support. So the question assumes there would be enough support for it to be a serious reality… I would support it because it is agreeable with my religion and my nature. However, no worries, it does not have enough support (“critical mass”) of hardly any vocal or recognized segment of the population. Perhaps there are some stealthily silent segments which could support it… and a very small minority that vocally does…

So… the question is more of a fairy tale… if ifs and buts were bolts and nuts… we’d all own hardware stores…

It is very politically incorrect (practically political suicide) to be against anything related to the "homosexual’ contingent. It’s bullying in the worst…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Most people are probably hesitant about amending the Constitution for any reason.

The best solution would be for all the states to ban so-called “gay marriage”.

However, if the progressives insists on using the courts to get their way…that’s what Constitutional Amendments are for.

But it would never pass in the current culture.

 

[migueltojose]

Most people are probably hesitant about amending the Constitution for any reason.

The best solution would be for all the states to ban so-called “gay marriage”.

However, if the progressives insists on using the courts to get their way…that’s what Constitutional Amendments are for.

But it would never pass in the current culture.

It appears states rights are quickly eroding and may soon be a thing of the past…

 

[markomalley]

Evening, everyone. I heard about the senator from Kansas and other desires to want a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the wake of the DOMA ruling last month and I’m just curious to see what CAF would think should such a thing ever surface. Unlikely, but anything is possible.

I would not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

I would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the lifelong union between one man and one woman for the purpose, if both are capable, of rearing children.

 

[JohnHWolfe]

It doesn’t affect me any, so f*** it

 

[Pulvis]

I voted yes. I cannot, and will not accept a state sponsored heresy in the face of The Teachings of Holy Mother Church. Not SSM, Not Abortion, not euthanasia. Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said " a lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it. And the truth is still the Truth, even if no one believes it." That sums up my stance perfectly.

 

[JimG]

Actually it shouldn’t be necessary. Is a constitutional amendment required to ‘ban’ square circles? It’s not needed because such a thing is impossible. The same is true of same sex ‘marriage,’ but the culture has somehow lost sight of what marriage is, and of what men and women are, and why children are important.

 

[JimG]

Is marriage bigoted and discriminatory?

It’s true, a constitutional amendment ought not to be needed to state the obvious. And yet it probably is needed, because in these times, the obvious is taken as discrimination, and the impossible is seen as reasonable.

 

[Neildown]

Another thing worth consideration is the fact that the state actually has no real authority to legislate marriage (no matter what you define it as) in the first place. It is a positive attribute of human nature that existed before governments ever did and is not anymore subservient to the state than any of our other natural human rights. In all honesty the government only has the right to recognize marriage for what it is - an already-existing institution. It cannot change the definition, though I suppose it could account for a change in it, were such a change possible. That said, I’m kind of thinking of rescinding my previous stance of neutrality…