Posted on 04/24/2006 5:50:17 PM PDT by sirchtruth
Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10 million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their congressional representatives. "The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay Catholic group. In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry. But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed, compared to 63 percent in 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Gay marriage is not a partisan political issue--even if the majority of Democrats support it and the majority of Republicans are opposed to it. Churches are perfectly within their rights to speak out on it.
It would restrict governments, like in MA, from imposing same sex gender house playing on society as a legal institution.
Oh, I agree. We need to impose consistency on this issue, and soon. Until there is an amendment, there will be a real risk that the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court will impose on all of us its own view of how society should be ordered.
You haven't been paying attention, have you. You won't get a vote. The State Supreme Court ruling of 2004 will stand because the nutless, gutless, I'd-rather-be-elected-than-right legislators have let the deadline for the Constitutionally Required 2nd majority vote pass, without acting. Mass. is officially the Gay State and even upon an instantaneous and unanimous vote to amend the state constitution, you would be three years from seeing it on the ballot. Game Over Masshole, we lose.
" You haven't been paying attention, have you. You won't get a vote."
True, but is the alternative to give up? Even if we don't get a vote, I don't want these people to think everyone is ok with it. And when it's too much and I'm forced to leave Mass for good, so my tax dollars from two jobs go to something worthwhile, I'll give a big middle finger to the whole lot of them!
I agree. I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but this garbage doesn't belong anywhere near the U.S. Constitution. Let the states deal.
It'll never pass, it'll rile up the base, and then after the election they'll forget about it for another 4 years. Yawn.
Well said...they don't care about anything but their selfishness
I would agree. However, where they step over the line is endorsing specific candidates & votes I believe. (I'm talking legally here btw...not morally)
Clever, but at the end of the day the reality of we're talking about is restrictions on people. Semantics won't change this fact.
Regardless of issue, this is what I and others are opposed to. The Constitution / Bill of Rights exists to grant us rights, not take them away.
The problem is that the Constitution requires one state to honor the contracts fored in other states. So one liberal hellhole (Mass.) can impose sodomite marriages on the whole country.
A protection of marriage ammendment would stop government from imposing sodomite marriage on us.
It is a matter of perspective. There are some that believe "homosexual marriage" is a right.
I myself do not view "homosexual marriage" as a right.
The issue "homosexual marriage" that is playing out is simply put a matter of exercising the checks and balances underlying our form of government. The amendment process is legitimate and IF the amendment goes through it too is legitimate.
What precipitates the amendment is reaction of the citizenry to actual and potential legislation from the bench. The unelected judiciary is overstepping when it creates or attempts to grant rights that do not nor never have existed or been recognized. As such they are being rightly called on the carpet...
WRONG! The Constitution/BOR exists to stop government from taking away our rights. Our rights are given by God not by government. (If the government gives they can just as easily take away)
We have the right to not have to recognize sodomite marriages. Sodomy has never been accepted as legitimate in any civilized country and it should not be forced on us now. Since we have the right to freedom of religion, and forced recognition of sodomite marriage would violate that right, a Constitutional ammendment barring government from recognizing sodomite marriage is legitimate. See Sweden, Canada and England where preachers are being jailed for preaching against sodomy. There is a right to freedom of religion. There is no right to government recognition of sodomy.
I disagree. Government is limited in that it can not endorse one religion over another; however, there is nothing constitutionally limiting a religion from endorsing politician and or policy.
What you belief is legitimately premised convention is actually judicially derived absurdity and has more to do with the government's historical attempt to muzzle religion by threat of removing tax exempt status.
However, if one understands what premises tax exempt status as far as religion is concerned versus other non-profits then one can clearly see that religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed activity and an activity the government can not impinge upon and or regulate whereas non-profit activity is a granted and or licensed privilege with inherent responsibilities and regulations e.g. no politics to maintain tax exempt status...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.