Good. This is one of the stupidest amendments ever proposed.
Agreed.
The amend defines marriage. Usually simple definitions of words used in fed law are placed in the US Code. The only way to prevent some perverted leftist from tossing out the definition and replacing it with an all inclusive rainbow def, is to palce it right in the Constitution where it belongs. That way marriage retains it's traditional meaning of a mutually agreed to contract between one man and one woman.
I agree. Look how it turned out the last time an amendment was passed to control people's behavior.
Today, when a concerned effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens's protection against the government.--Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government", 1964
Agree, also. States should have the say on this EXCEPT that states not permitting gay marriage should NOT be required to accept and recognize homosexual marriages in States that do allow such marriage.
Another stupid amendment previously proposed, IMO, was flag burning. I believe that it is a form of free speech, even though disrespectful. Flag burning is done only to get attention by some radical group or individual, and local laws on disturbing the peace or inciting a riot can be used instead of a constitutional amendment.
Agreed. A complete waste of good time and money.
And this is the only post I will make on this topic.
Government has no business marrying people anyway. The governmental purpose of a marriage is to allow two people to become a joint partnership in conducting business as opposed to "sole proprietorship", i.e. being single and having your own income.
Since marriage is, for the most part, a religious institution, government has no business sanctioning it. Let people get married in the church of their choice (and I had a Christian marriage at the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas before we received the sacrament of matrimony at our parish church.) If the church does gay marriages and thinks gay marriage is in line with its theology, fine. If not, do what you want, but don't call yourselves married because the church did not and will not marry you.
Or, let the couple go to the local JP or county clerk's office to get certified to be a joint partnership. That's what you do in business anyway.
Then let government issue them a certificate recognizing that joining as a joint partnership and allow them to conduct business.
I just have a huge problem with government mixing with religion. We have enough problems with government telling us what and what not to do and how to do it. Live and let live.
why?
yup.
I agree.
If this is a state issue, each will need to re-define which states they will recognize as valid. What may be true for Maine may not be true for Missouri.
Legislating social standards is a proper function of government, and the Constitution is the most logical platform by which a national norm - recognized by all states - is established. This bill needs to be reconsidered by this Congress.
It is the best Bush re-election strategy on the table, because it's in keeping with the Word of God.
any particular reason or are you just a homo?
I agree completely, We should have stopped at the first ten, but as amendments go, this one, like the flag desecration one, are not sound reasons for amending what the dems like to call a living document.