Define marriage as one man and one woman

Petitions.Whitehouse.gov ^ | 1/16/2015 | Undefined

[NetAddicted]

We the People request that marriage is officially defined as the union between one man and one woman. The age old tradition must be preserved to ensure America keeps its values. Traditional marriage would in fact be the ideal scenario for a child to be raise and future Americans to be developed. We ask the Obama Administration to preserve the concept Traditional Marriage for future America.

[Jim Noble]

“You could have 300 million signatures”

You couldn’t get five million at this point in history. The time to do this was 1994 and the GOPe chickened out and passed DOMA instead.

It was possible to amend the Constitution then, and it would be impossible to repeal now.

That moment is gone.

[Jim Noble]

“But you cannot call it marriage.”

You will soon be forced to do exactly that, or be severely punished.

[DoodleDawg]

Traditional marriage would in fact be the ideal scenario for a child to be raise and future Americans to be developed.

Going to outlaw traditional divorce too?

[Jim Noble]

The problem with the religious marriage theory is that the parties to this contract undertake certain obligations to one another that human nature inclines them to default on unless the counterparty has an enforcement procedure or, failing that, a way to recover damages.

Just as with all other contracts, this requires the power of the ruler to enforce.

True marriage requires no divorce, criminalization of adultery, and laws supporting traditional gender roles (higher pay for men, alimony).

Almost no one supports any of these pillars of true marriage, in fact, all laws enabling true marriage have been repealed. So, no matter what anyone says, almost no one supports true marriage,

[ExGeeEye]

1. Re-read the relevant part of the Bible. There’s a couple words left out of the question which would have caused the question to answer itself.

2. A priest with knowledge of the Bible would have been able to provide the answer.

[Salvation]

Signed

[Louis Foxwell]

The issue with which the SC should grapple is the meaning of marriage. Let’s see of they can offer clarity on that issue.

[dbehsman]

You couldn’t get five million at this point in history. The time to do this was 1994 and the GOPe chickened out and passed DOMA instead.

It was possible to amend the Constitution then, and it would be impossible to repeal now.

I was just thinking about that yesterday morning, and I remember it well. Bill Clinton was saying that while of course he agreed that marriage is just between one man and one woman, he didn't like the idea of "mucking around" with the Constitution. A feeble argument if I ever heard of one, and an argument which the Republicans did not seize upon and bash Bill Clinton over his lying hypocritical head!

The liberal media said that it was preposterous to go for an amendment, because no one was pushing same sex marriage, and the attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment was just a political stunt by those "evil" Conservatives. The liberal media claimed that the Republicans were just looking for a nonexistent problem that did not need a solution, and that we should focus on other things.

Christian Conservatives were assured by the Republican party that this was not really worth pushing, we had a law and that was enough, amending the Constitution might make the liberal media hate the Republican party even more, and that there was no way that same sex marriage would ever become law of the land.

And now, here we are.