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 ...
Add my name to it!
Well, all weddings should be gay affairs, but that's where I draw the line.
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.
I doubt it. Honestly I think I have met like 2 people who are pro-gay marriage. People seem to be really against it or just don't care about the issue. Since they don't care they wouldn't vote for it or against it.
Interesting timing ...
We saw postcards at [Catholic] Church this past Sunday, but it was for putting a question on the ballot in Massachusetts, the epicenter of this "homosexual marriage" nonsense. So far we have not been able to vote on the issue, because the libs know we can get the state constitution amended if there is a vote.
I agree in principal with this, but I don't think I could support it. I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do.
So you're FOR gay affairs, but pretend to be opposed to gay marriage?
Maybe it's time to come out of the closet!?
Yep! They are scared to death if vote takes place...These people have no idea what damage they are causing to society and don't really care who they harm with their selfish, "All About Me" attitudes.
well don't you know that everyone is MA is in support of gay marriages? thats why we don't get to vote on it, because everyone agrees that its a good idea, so why waste time writing out the question to put on a ballot?
I seriously hate Massachusetts sometimes.
Thanks, I agree with you 100%
Well, you better not set foot in Vermont because you'll hate it more!
Using the Constitution to put restrictions on what citizens can do would set a VERY dangerous precedent. There are other ways to stop gay "marriage".
The amendment would tell the U.S. government that it could not recognize gay marriage. Pretty simple, really.
That's what the polls say, but for some reason everytime there is a vote on this issues, around 70 percent oppose gay marriage.
It would be a restriction on government power. An amendment would tell federal and state governments they cannot recognize gay/lesbian marriage.
This really doesn't say they can't marry, it is just not recognized by the government. This doesn't stop two people from doing anything.
You're making no sense. An amendment wouldn't keep gays and lesbians from carrying on as if they are married or even prevent liberal churches from recognizing or blessing their "special relationships" as marriages according to any private interpretation of the word.
I would second this.
With the added proviso that tax-exempt religious organizations should not be jumping into the political fray so overtly. Just sets them up for legal issues down the road.
How would an amendment that restricts the power of government violate the principle that a constitution is designed to restrict the power of government?
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.