I vote for marriage. It's divinely ordained, and has been around longer.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; kmiller1k; mhking; rdb3; Travis McGee; Shermy; ..
((((((growl)))))
To: Sabertooth
Sacred? Gotta be marriage.
3 posted on
06/30/2003 6:27:15 PM PDT by
ntnychik
To: Sabertooth
Any marriage worth saving will survive any Supreme Court decision.
To: Sabertooth
I don't think you can compare the two -- one is of Caesar, and one is of God.
6 posted on
06/30/2003 6:28:45 PM PDT by
ellery
To: Sabertooth
Marriage of course.
7 posted on
06/30/2003 6:29:48 PM PDT by
bluebunny
To: NittanyLion
Over here.
To: Sabertooth
If a Constitutional Ammendment could be passed that prohibited same-sex marriages, then one could just as easily be passed to a) criminalize abortion, or b) repeal the Income Tax, or c) overrule the Supreme Court's bogus interpretation of the 'commerce clause,' or d) overrule the Supreme Court's bogus interpretation of the 'necessary and proper' clause, or e) deny the Supreme Court it's bogus use of the 'compelling state interest' justification for permitting whatever Unconstitutional government action they take a fancy to.
9 posted on
06/30/2003 6:30:21 PM PDT by
sourcery
(The Evil Party thinks their opponents are stupid. The Stupid Party thinks their opponents are evil.)
To: Sabertooth
I vote the Constitution. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals, the Constitution is the political contract between our state and our people.
10 posted on
06/30/2003 6:31:57 PM PDT by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Sabertooth
Good question.
Marriage is older. The sacred union between two people will outlast any Constitution, because in the end, constitutions always get amended, fall apart, and ultimately fail.
11 posted on
06/30/2003 6:31:57 PM PDT by
Cathryn Crawford
(Check out my blog at: http://cathryncrawford.blogspot.com)
To: Sabertooth
Considering the current divorce rate, and the growing number of childless married couples, I'd have to go with the Constitution at this point. Personally, I'd take the same as well. If you really love someone and plan to be with them the rest of your life, do you really need a contract?
But then again, that could be because I'm a godless sinner agnostic. ;)
12 posted on
06/30/2003 6:31:58 PM PDT by
Quick1
To: Sabertooth
Yep, hands down Marriage. What's more likely to be desecrated: Marriage or the Constitution?
Well the Constitution has already been desecrated with the right to privacy overturning state's rights. That will lead to Marriage being desecrated.
13 posted on
06/30/2003 6:32:43 PM PDT by
DannyTN
(Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
To: Sabertooth
The Constitution was based on Biblical principles. Marriage was ordained as a Godly sacrament. The latter is more sacred.
14 posted on
06/30/2003 6:33:33 PM PDT by
gitmo
(The perfect symbol for democracy: the guillotine.)
To: Sabertooth
marriage. It is the building block of ever society. The socialists work overtime to deconstruct marriage and family because it is the threat. The roles of each gender in a family threaten the leftist. The possibility of loyalty to the family over loyalty to the state irks the left. (the old USSR had a special award to children who turned in their parents as enemies of the state)
Marriage, preserve marriage and you preserve the constitution.
To: Sabertooth
Agreed.
To: Sabertooth
If you're using sacred in the "highly valued" definition of the word, I vote Constitution. That paper is suppose to guarantee my right to marry whoever I prefer. Other societal contracts include arranged marriages. Besides, I believe marriage was invented by man - freedom was not.
Although I hate to see the slipperly slope this is heading down, I believe free consenting adults can join in whatever contractual arrangements they want. That said, I don't believe gays should be allowed to adopt.
To: Sabertooth
I think an Amendment "might" be in order --- as provided by our Founders --- those wise men, nary a one homosexual.
21 posted on
06/30/2003 6:37:24 PM PDT by
onyx
(Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
To: Sabertooth
If such a basic,normal bedrock foundation of our society(marriage) is now subjected to debate by the pseudo intelligentsia, to the point that our elected "leaders" consider an ammendment to the constitution is needed-then our society has indeed already fallen.
Lock and load folks.
Atlas has shrugged.
23 posted on
06/30/2003 6:37:56 PM PDT by
sarasmom
(Punish France.Ignore Germany.Forgive Russia..)
To: Sabertooth
I vote Constitution. A lot of folks have a a number of marriages and change em a lot. I only need one Constitution and it doesn't need a lot of changing.
24 posted on
06/30/2003 6:38:12 PM PDT by
BikerNYC
To: Sabertooth
I vote for marriage. It's divinely ordained Speaking from a Mullah's "devinely ordained" position, polygamy is okay, too.
To: Sabertooth
The Constitution is not sacred. Worth dying to protect sure, but not sacrificing my soul for. My soul has been made whole in my marriage.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson