Federal Marriage Amendment

[midnight Target]

My Amendment is specific to the traditional union of marriage.

How can they possibly claim that this won't affect civil unions yet it will be specific to "traditional marriage" without violating the separation of church and state?

[Sandman]

One nation under god!


You heathens too!

[Martlet]

marriage should be illegal, anyway.

[Thrawn]

I don't know, we allowed gay marriage in Ontario and look what happened...oh wait nothing did.  

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

That doesn't look like less government to me.
-SW

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know, we allowed gay marriage in Ontario and look what happened...oh wait nothing did.  

It's not that anything will "happen".  Marriage was legalized here in Massachusetts, too.  Nothing has "happened".  

That isn't the issue.  Traditionalists are concerned, legitimately, that it changes what marriage for them is all about.  That concern isn't right or wrong.  The problem doesn't lie with people's views, it lies with the state's involvement in marriage.

The state should be legitimizing unions for tax and rights reasons.  Leave the marrying up to the church.

[Chairboy]

What do you mean, leave it up to the church?  My wife and I were married completely a-religiously.  Are you suggesting that since we didn't go to a church or have church officials preside, we aren't married?

[SOB]

Originally posted by Martlet
The state should be legitimizing unions for tax and rights reasons.  Leave the marrying up to the church.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by midnight Target
How can they possibly claim that this won't affect civil unions yet it will be specific to "traditional marriage" without violating the separation of church and state?

Because it does not define nor ban civil union.  It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The english text in it is very simple.

I'd rather have congress making laws than radical judges and the aclu.

[storch]

Originally posted by SOB
I'll buy that for a dollar!

sign me up for that one also.  sadly the homosexuals aren't satisfied with mere tolerance they want us to embrace their lifestyle.  I could care less what you do in your home but if you try to impose your deviant lifestyle upon me we have a fight.

Public homosexuality is an imposition.

[storch]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Because it does not define nor ban civil union.  It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The english text in it is very simple.

I'd rather have congress making laws than radical judges and the aclu.

Hear, hear

[storch]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know, we allowed gay marriage in Ontario and look what happened...oh wait nothing did.  

I thought you might be the product of a homosexual union.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Because it does not define nor ban civil union.  It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The english text in it is very simple.

I'd rather have congress making laws than radical judges and the aclu.

Marriage is a religious institution. Especially if the state provides a separate definition for civil unions. The state needs to keep its flat round little pignose out of peoples religion and lives.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Marriage is a religious institution. Especially if the state provides a separate definition for civil unions. The state needs to keep its flat round little pignose out of peoples religion and lives.

sure but then the state "minority" makes laws that are totally repugnant to alot of religious institutions....what to do


this sounds like a solution to me....make it known by the fed that marriage is between a man and a woman....then let the states decide wether they want to establish "civil unions" or such.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Chairboy
What do you mean, leave it up to the church?  My wife and I were married completely a-religiously.  Are you suggesting that since we didn't go to a church or have church officials preside, we aren't married?

Obviously I'm not suggesting that at all, since my suggestion isn't the current state of affairs.  For the sake of your question, though, let's assume that my suggestion was law.

Nothing would change.  You and your wife aren't married in the eyes of the church now anyway.  You're married in the eyes of the state.   Your union would be called something other than marriage.  Who cares what.