Traditional marriage has 3 elements:
1) It is permanent (no divorce)
2) It is sexually exclusive (adultery is a felony)
3) It is between a man and at least one woman.
Which of these does your amendment restore?
Besides, what harm does it do? I can see the Christian Viciousness movement flogging this particular dead horse, but in a world where most people don't know the names of the people two houses down the block or on the next floor of the apartment building, what those people are doing doesn't set a very important example.
We ought to be incensed about the courts getting above themselves, but that's another issue.
![]() |
Mass. gay marriage ban overturned
Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. THE RULING closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led to its Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage. The Massachusetts high court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion. The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote. BACKGROUND TO LAWSUIT The high court heard arguments in March, and hundreds of organizations and individuals across the country filed briefs on both sides of the argument. The court had three options: instructing the state to give marriage licenses to the seven couples; upholding the state's authority to deny same-sex couples the right to wed; or referring the matter to the Legislature. The Legislature already considering various competing proposals to outlaw or to legalize gay marriages or civil unions. Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples. OTHER STATES
In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license -- a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples. The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.
|
Higher Taxes, Don't fight the terrorists, let guys marry other guys.
A "perfect storm".
On Sunday, Sept. 7, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., addressed the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the Lynchburg, Va., church I have pastored since its founding in 1956. I wish every Christian in America could have heard this courageous lady explain why she has sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, the proposed constitutional amendment designed to preserve the sanctity of marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman.
In the present socio-political climate, it is not widely popular to be promoting this traditional idea, but Mrs. Musgrave is boldly spearheading the effort to permanently safeguard marriage from activist judges and politically correct lawmakers.
Presently, more than 80 cosponsors have signed onto the bill. She said that Christian activists will play a large role in seeing the bill passed.
"Many people think Christians should be quiet in the public square; they think that Christians should not have a voice in the public square," Mrs. Musgrave said. "But I don't agree with that. I think it is very important that we have our voice heard in that square."
Of course, changing the Constitution will by no means be an easy thing. An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by 38 states. In our favor is the fact that 36 states have already enacted laws banning homosexual marriage. Furthermore, in 1996, when Congress passed a federal ban on homosexual marriages, 85 percent of the Senate and 79 percent of the House voted for the ban.
Mrs. Musgrave, who has been married to her husband Steve for 35 years they met at Bible camp as teen-agers noted that, even in traditionally liberal states like Hawaii and California, ballot initiatives for homosexual marriage have been voted down by the people. This, she believes, is a positive indication that her Federal Marriage Initiative will ultimately be passed.
Mrs. Musgrave said that while marriage has become trivial to many Americans (our 50 percent divorce rate serves as evidence), it is important for those who revere the sanctity of marriage to protect it.
"Just because the institution of marriage is not held in the respect that we should give it does not mean that we should do away with the definition of marriage," said the 54-year-old mother of four and grandmother of five.
Mrs. Musgrave added that it is the role of the Christian community to protect marriage, specifically within the church setting.
"We need to ask God's protection over our marriages," she said. Mrs. Musgrave also encouraged older Christians to set a "good example for young people," adding that those with years of successful marriage "need to counsel young people and help them choose their mates wisely."
In closing, Rep. Musgrave asked Christians nationwide to help her ensure that marriage remains safe.
I agree that the only way to put marriage out of reach of fanatical judges and militant lawmakers is to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, period.
Polls indicate that 80 percent of Americans believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but the aggressive forces against it are actively working to redefine marriage and the family. We absolutely must work together to keep the sanctity of marriage out of their reach, forever.
Once again, I urge my friends to sign our petition to preserve traditional marriage. We already have hundreds of thousands of signatures, but are seeking 1 million Americans who will support the Federal Marriage Amendment. The petition, with your name affixed, will be forwarded specifically to your U.S. representative and two U.S. senators, as well as to the entire Congress and to President Bush.
Rep. Musgrave has expressed great thanks to those who have already signed the petition. For those who have yet to sign the petition, I urge you to join us in the effort to preserve marriage in America.
http://www.onemanonewoman.com/ .
The only thing that will solve the problem You are wanting to fix is MORALS.