I have to agree here, this is a state issue and should not be molested by the federal government like abortion was.
Hello...rouge judges have legislated from the bench and miraculously discovered a clause that gays and lesbians can be married. That is why a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages is being discussed in the first place.
Danforth doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone who gives a speech to the LCR is not a conservative.
I have to agree here, this is a state issue and should not be molested by the federal government.
I also agree that it's dangerous to tamper with the constitution over an issue like this. This "protect marriage" movement isn't protecting anything. I can tell you that my marriage isn't threatened at all by what two people of the same sex do or don't do. Those who see this as a constitutional issue need to get a life.
I can tell you what it does do and that is that rather than vote entirely GOP as I used to do, I now pick and choose and think long and hard before voting for anyone who considers this a federal issue.
Homosexuality is an aberrant stain upon society that must be addressed NOW. I am sympathetic towards states' rights, but sometimes such rights have to be set aside for the needs of the greater good. Just like certain liberties need to be curtailed by the Patriot Act so we can properly fight the new global war on terrorism.
The amendment as proposed would only address marriage on a Federal level. States, if they desire, could recognize a homosexual "marriage" but would prevent one state's recognition from forcing another to recognize it.
Without the amendment, a resident of Mass. could engage in a homosexual "marriage" and then move to Texas or Georgia, and through the courts, demand the state of Texas or Georgia recognize this "marriage" and provide it the legal protections or rights real marriage would bestow on its participants.
The amendment prevents this nightmare scenario.
But why should the federal government only want to recognize a heterosexual marriage. Because civil marriage (not religious but purely civil marriage) is a legal contract between three parties: the man, the woman, and the state. The state is party to the marriage (by providing legal and tax benefits to the couple) because it gets something out of the marriage, namely a new generation to perpetuate the state. Would children be born without civil marriage? Sure, but look at any inner city to see the mess that occurs when children are not raised in a traditional households.
The fact of the matter is normal families are more likely to produce healthy, responsible children that will lead this society in the future. Hence the state has a stake in marriage, and is party to the contract. Since homosexuals cannot produce children, it is wrong for the state to engage in this contract. The state derives no benefit from homosexual marriage.
The problem is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, which would require states that did not approve, or specifically banned gay marriage to accept it.
Mark