Those 6000 in MA can move to states that don't recognize same-sex marriages create an expensive legal mess! Not so. The Defense of Marriage Act prevents states from having to recognize same sex marriages. And the federal challenges to it have all ended in failure. Even the infamous 9th Circuit has recognized that a state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage between one man and one woman to promote procreation. There is no danger.
FoxNews reported that many black ministers lobbied Dem Senators today to support the Marriage Amendment. Blacks overwhelming support defining marriage as between one man & one woman.
As do I. But there is absolutely no danger to the definition. If a state judge overturns traditional marriage in a state, it is the business of the state to cure the issue. Obviously there is something in the state constitution that needs a correction. Massachusetts isn't at the mercy of its judges. It's at the mercy of its voters, the people. If they want to amend their constitution, they have the power. This is absolutely all about nothing.
I'm very glad Katherine Harris is holding Nelson's 'feet to the fire' on this issue!
As long as she doesn't tell the whole story, she may succeed. Remember, she is fighting a completely losing battle and is pulling out all the stops. Any one who has looked into this issue knows that marriage is not at all under any winnable attack. Those that understand this and still want the amendment, have a completely different agenda.
Obviously there is something in the state constitution that needs a correction. Massachusetts isn't at the mercy of its judges. It's at the mercy of its voters, the people. If they want to amend their constitution, they have the power. This is absolutely all about nothing.
Did you know that the people of Massachusetts submitted petitions to put the issue before the voters two of years ago? The Democrat controlled legislature has been thwarting the right of the people to have the Marriage Amendment on the ballot since then.
In MA the Commonwealth's Constitution is being held hostage by the homosexual lobby!
Here's an excerpt from a letter which MA Gov. Romney sent to all US Senators. He explains very well why the Marriage Amendment is needed:
Excerpt:
Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”
In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories.
In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts.
Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state.
It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.