Marriage Amendment Won't Stop Homosexual Marriage, Only Slow it Down

www.caffeinatedthoughts.com ^ | Descember 08, 2010 | David Shedlock

[grassboots.org]

We can't stop homosexual "marriage" with a Marriage Amendment. This isn't pessimism, it's reality. Moreover, I am not going the route of libertarian-infatuated Glenn Beck and giving up, or conceding the point that this whole debate is irrelevant.

However, It has become clear in recent months that feminist proponents of homosexual "marriage" in America aren't about to let a little thing called a Constitutional Amendment slow down their assault upon the world as God made it.

Suppose we pass this Vitter sponsored Marriage Amendment (HJ 56):

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of 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.

Stephen Baskersville of The American Conservative pointed out that what is happening across the pond is likely to happen here:

Britain’s Gender Recognition Act allows transsexuals to falsify their birth certificates retroactively to indicate they were born the gender of their choice. “The practical effect C9 will inevitably be same-sex ‘marriage’,” writes Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail. “Marriage as a union between a man and a woman will be destroyed, because ‘man’ and ‘woman’ will no longer mean anything other than whether someone feels like a man or a woman.

What must we do then? Define, have a constitutional amendment defining male and female? The founders of our country recognized that certain things are self-evident. But those who are hell-bent on throwing off God's standards are willing to redefine reality in order to promote their agenda. Law can no more save a country...

[grassboots.org]

Is there any reason that we cannot expect the 9th Circus to allow the same kind of hanky-panky with the definition of male and female (or man and woman) that they did with marriage?

Grassboots.Org (aka, David Shedlock)

[Christian Engineer Mass]

There is only one answer - bring a case by a single person that the government are violating their civil rights by not giving them benefits.

Stop the government giving benefits because of marriage. Once they get their claws in there, they can do anything.

[balch3]

the author endorses covenant marriage as a solution to the divorce epidemic. Louisiana has had a covenant marriage option for several years and almost no one uses it, not even Christians. When I say almost no one, I mean for all practical purposes, zero. There have been only a handful of covenant marriages during the entire time it’s been available. Unless we make it mandatory, covenant marriage won’t solve anything.

[CIDKauf]

I think the answer is tax reform. Anyone working should pay a Flat Tax, no deductions, no additional income tax, no VAT, no deduction for married or single, nothing. Then we see that the agenda has nothing to do with anything other than trashing the church and Christian lifestyle. If gays want to give their partners rights to visit in a hospital, then give them durable medical power of attorney. If they want to start a Gay church... let them. God will judge us all, and is the ONLY judge. Good luck and may God Bless.

[Vendome]

I don’t care what you guys call it but you ain’t going to co-opt the word marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

We aren’t throwing out natural order or thousands of years of writing and art to suit your need for parity and acceptance.

Besides, why do you want to run around for the rest of your life as a caricature of a synthetic and objectified person whose primary identity is not that of being a human being and being accorded the same respect and rights as any other but rather and “qualified” identity that is always preceded by “This is so and so, he/she/they, is/are gay/homosexual, etc?

Why can’t you just do your hookup, call it something else and be identified as a person not unique for your sexual preference but as a whole person who is universally accepted for being just that... A Person.

[Sola Veritas]

OK...I can fix the language to end ambiguity:

“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a person born a male and genetically so to a person born a female and genetically so; both being of legal age to marry. 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.”

Personally....I would like to add the following language:

“Section ?. Any individual of group advocating or initiating attempts of any nature to disregard or circumvent this constitutional requirement, except by the constitutional ammendment process, shall be deemed an enemy of the state and subject to the charge of treason with death the penalty. Upon proper ratification of this ammendment, this issue will be closed and not within the jurisdiction of any court, state or federal, to interpret to include the Supreme Court of the U.S., nor shall it be used for deciding other cases beyond the original intent of this ammendment. This ammendment is clearly intended to ensure that marraige will always and only be a heterosexual union of a man and a woman”

[grassboots.org]

B3,

I agree. but covenant marriage is basically a return to at-fault divorce, which is really the only solution.

[grassboots.org]

Thank you for your kind words.

[grassboots.org]

Pretty close, but if you go to the responses on the blogpost you will see some nutburger “scientist” trying to make the case that there is no genetic basis for having male and female.

[Kakaze]

This is the main reason gays want DADT repealed.

Once the military recognizes openly homosexual members, they will demand partner benefits, then on base housing rights.

After this happens the homosexual groups will fill the courts demanding marriage citing the recognition of the military as precedent.

[grassboots.org]

Covenant marriage is a stop-gap measure, used as a holding place in case there would be a revival of sound marriage policy (ridding ourselves of no-fault divorce).

[grassboots.org]

"Sherkat reports that for the first time in American history, same-sex marriage has more support than opposition, a massive shift from the first time GSS asked the question just 22 years ago, when more than three-quarters of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 12.4 percent supported it.... "

"despite efforts to block same-sex marriage in states across the country"

Decisions made by voters have unananimously opposed "gay marriage" in spite of the polling. This could be the difference between a secret ballot and responding to a pollster on the phone.