[RogerFGay]

ping

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Read later bump...

[farmfriend]

ping

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Some so-called conservatives are looking for an alternative to the marriage amendment.These people are just weaklings and worried about a few votes from an overblown(pun intended)minority.We have to stop listening to people like this and have the amendment anyway to lock this crap up once and for all.The amendment should be worded so strictly that their will be NO OTHER INTERPRETATION!!

[NutCrackerBoy]

core problem = the fact that marriage and family has already been ripped from its natural and cultural roots by Congress

One of the reasons there is a legal institution of marriage at all is that families needed the enforcement of government to hold fathers (and mothers and husbands and wives) to their responsibilities. I believe this was appropriate: the church and social disapproval would be ineffectual by themselves. This is a legitimate interest of society that should not fall only to vigilante justice.

The plight of fathers under today's social policies is very real, but I do not agree with the notion that this sort of thing should be placed fundamentally out of the reach of government.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Folks talk a lot about "Defending Marriage" by banning same-sex marriage. This author points out that the greatest harm to marriage comes from the current divorce and custody laws. That is where reform is most urgently needed and it requires no constitutional amendments.

[EdReform]

Ping

[longtermmemmory]

There is no reason not to attack on all fronts.

The issue has become federal because of Full Faith and Credit. The 1996 Fed. DOMA will not stand against any number of agenda judges. It only take one back room judge to deal the blow. What happens when the next family court judge, who is a closet homosexual, decides to "take a stand." (Do you know which judge was the homosexual during the 2000 race?)

Putting it in black letter law shuts the judges down. It defines the debate to those who only worship the state.

I do agree that Fatherhood MUST be emphasised. The only way for that to happen is to have divorce be a real negative consequece for mothers. No more divorce as the cash out value of a marriage. Infidelity should be a factor. Give them the no fault divorce, just put a penalty.

How about abolishing permanent alimony? No rehabilitative alimony beyond five years.

Does anyone know what happened in the state that adopted the "enhanced" harder to get a divorce type marriage?