Didn't do much for GUN RIGHTS.....What makes them think it will do anything for marriage?.....
I really don't think another amendment would matter!
Why don't we pass a Constitutional Amendment that says that the government should be restrained by the existing Constitution??
Anyone who states that a constitutional amendment is not needed is just plain wrong or intentionally lying.
thanks for the article.
No, just a spiritual revival. Everybody on FR and other conservative sites need to pray everyday, and ask God to pour out his Spirit on our country. It will change everything, and make the wicked repent, or flee the country. Anyone who thinks the solution begins with man, and not with God, is living the Democratic party lie, no matter what they call themselves.
I think it is necessary to amend the Constitution to limit and define the appellate powers of Article III courts.
It is a foolish waste of time to fight a five-year battle to ban so-called "marriages" between members of the same sex when the courts will just be right back with another outrage as soon as that amendment passes.
We should save our energy for a single, comprehensive amendment which would forbid the use of language in the preamble "blessings of Liberty", "general welfare" as the substantive basis for ruling State laws unconstitutional.
Once the term marriage can be defined by each state the homosexual community will have their foot in the door to securing every right and priviledge that is assigned to heterosexual couples. They will demand it and they will win in the courts. This will speed the moral decline of this nation and weaken us as a whole. BEWARE, pandora's box is being opened and there will be no closing it.
Marriage has managed to survive for many millennia. A few 21st gay activists are not going to hurt marriage.
Yes, unless you can get those black robed people to quit legislating from the benches.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - An excellently reasoned argument in favor of the Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. The writer is too negative, though. He starts off by stating that same sex marriage will happen, which I don't buy. I think it can be stopped. If it isn't, then the future is very, very dark.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
NO. Sanctity refers to things that are sacred and things that are sacred are about individual faith, religious tradition and practice. NONE of these is the domain of government.
Look at how it is today: You have civil ceremonies. You have church weddings. You have no-fault divorce and states where that isn't possible. You have community property states and those which are not. You have weddings between minors or not depending on the state. You have divorce, the secular dividing up of assets, legal custody and so forth but some religions have their own dissolution procedures. Catholics, for example. Orthodox Jews, I think, for another. More examples of the distinction between *sacred rights* and *legal rights*.
This duality has served us well. We're a free people, with freedom of religious practice, we claim to value the rights of states first before federal interference.
The only thing going on here is fundamentalist religious furvor compelling a vocal minority to toss aside over 200 years of precedent, national convention, and American secular values to serve and sooth everything from well-meaning paranoia to bigotry wrapped in alleged divine cloth.