[mrobison]

Where's the petition I can sign?

[Spunky]

Here is why we need an amendment.

I heard Senator Frist say today, the State of Massachusetts is likely to pass a State Constitutional Law recognizing Gay or Lesbian couples as married. Other states may pass a Law saying there is no marriage between Gays or Lesbians.

Now because each State has to recognize the Constitutional Law of another State all the Gays and Lesbians would go to Massachusetts, get married and then go back to their state and it would have to be accepted by that state.

So the Gays and Lesbians would have to be recognized in every state they live in as a married couple with all the benefits of a married couple even though the people of that state didn't want it that way.

This is the proposed Amendment

.......SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'
Joint Resolution

[Classicaliberalconservative]

No, No, No. By proposing a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage we are stating that currently it is legal and consitutional. It is not and never will or should be.

[Imagine]

Sorry so late to join this thread:

Let the world see the STRAIGHT, PRO-FAMILY EARTHQUAKE that is about to come! We need a STRAIGHT Movement -- shirts, bumper stickers, colors which represent male and female -- such as green and blue (or something other than pink or lavender) LETS GET IN THEIR FACE !!!!!

Homosexuality:

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.

Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend, such activities often presenting immediate risk to the participants; 2) are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large; 3) are prone to far greater sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, than the (normal) heterosexual population; 4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals; 5) engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event; 6) are engaged in aggressive and widespread efforts to indoctrinate our children by introducing the homosexual lifestyle using public schools as the primary indoctrination “vehicle” and likewise, through the movie/music/TV industry, with the dual goals of gaining school-age acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging sexual activity among children, especially same-sex experimentation; 7) view most everything through a mindset heavily biased in favor of the homosexual lifestyle and culture, which renders them mostly useless when asked to opine on matters that normal heterosexuals better resolve.

The mental deficiencies described herein applying to homosexuals shall not be confused with the deficiencies associated with the left wing democrat/socialist/marxist/ feminist/environmentalist minds, etc., which have their own distinct set of mental disorders.

This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

[Fred Mertz]

This country is doomed if Frist is proposing this as an amendment.

He's trying to make hay.

It's like the anti-flag burning amendent......a sideshow.

Amendments shouldn't be for trivial issues, but for the greatest good.

There you have it.

[Carry_Okie]

Frist wants a Constitutional amenment for this when he hasn't the nards for a real filibuster over confirmation of an appellate judge?

Puhleeze.

[hosepipe]

an amendment ?.... never happen....
An amendment mandateing to ALL the reading of TREASON(Ann Coulter)... might work though... would'nt pass but the press coverage and the C-SPAN I & II coverage would be precious... during the committee debate for the ammendment...

[philman_36]

The Constitution states how the government operates, not how the people are supposed to live.
What a waste! Some of these "legislators" need to go to the back of the class.

[A. Pole]

an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman

It should exclude defined incest. (brother and sister etc ...)

[SevenDaysInMay]

Anything short of requiring the rogue SCOTUS, now and forever, to "rule" within the actual meaning of the Constitutional limits of federal power, is aiding and abetting the destruction of our Constitution, the only source of lawful power of the feds.

SCOTUS has ruled unConstitutionally for 70 years, since the socialist FDR threatened that generation's SCOTUS with "packing" the court. The FDR didn't mean packigng, aka sodomizing, the court, now ruled legal in all 50 states. The "living" Constitution is by itself unConstitutional because our Constitution says what it means.

SCOTUS is breaching the very social contract from which they are granted power.

Their constitution is a collection of poorly worded, partial list of vague doctrines and suggestions for ruling We the Masses. Since the Depression, we have consented to subjugation by court orders and exective orders. Those sworn to protect and defend our Constitution are its most effective enemies.

Our Constitution IS the Law of the Land, not SCOTUS rulings. Our Constitution limits federal power of all three, no four branches, if you count the bastard child Regulation.

[Lucky2]

I just wrote Senator Frist an e-mail supporting him. We need to support all of those in government with common sense and fortitude. Gay marriage is just plain wrong and it goes against nature in every sense.

[mrobison]

Excellent link:

http://www.defendmarriage.org

Will someone ping everybody who might be interested? I don't know how! Thanks.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"

The Supremes will shortly thereafter declare Gay Marriage the law of the land. Amendments don't constrain the RULERS...

[mrobison]

Another excellent link:

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.htm

[mrobison]

Robert Bork has been advocating a constitutional amendment for nearly 2 years:

STOP COURTS FROM IMPOSING GAY MARRIAGE
Why we need a constitutional amendment
The Wall Street Journal
by Robert H. Bork

Tuesday, August 7, 2001

Of all the contested terrain in the culture war, the subject of homosexual rights is the most awkward to discuss. Almost all of us know homosexuals who are decent, intelligent and compassionate people, and we have no inclination to wound them.

Yet "gay rights" have come to the fore and we must have a discussion, free of ad hominem accusations, about whether homosexual acts and relationships are to be regarded as on a par with the marital relationship of a man and a woman. The immediate problem is the homosexual activists' drive for same-sex marriage.

The activists want it as an expression of moral approbation of homosexual conduct. Nevertheless, it is clear that most Americans do not want to create special rights for homosexuals or to consider their behavior morally neutral.

For that reason, the activists have concentrated their efforts on courts, knowing that judges have pushed, and continue to push, the culture to the left. One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in our society is the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

The activists breached that line when the supreme courts of Hawaii and Vermont, purporting to interpret their state constitutions, held that those states must recognize same-sex marriage. The Hawaiian electorate quickly amended their constitution to override that decision. The Vermont Constitution was extremely difficult to amend, and so the Legislature capitulated and enacted a civil-unions law, marriage in all but name, as the less repugnant of the alternatives the court allowed. More state courts are sure to follow.

Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S. Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, just as that court invented a right to abortion. The chosen instrument will be the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry? The argument is simplistic, but then the argument for the result in Roe v. Wade was nonexistent.

To head off the seemingly inexorable march of the courts toward the radical redefinition of marriage, the Alliance for Marriage has put forward the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The first sentence means that no legislature may confer the name of marriage on same-sex unions and no court may recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another country. We would hope that if people understand the principle behind the amendment, they would not try to contrive counterfeit forms of marriage. We would oppose such attempts, but are prepared to debate the matter in the political forum. So far as legislatures are concerned, the primary thrust of the sentence's prohibition is symbolic, reserving the name of marriage to its traditional meaning. But symbolism is crucial in cultural struggles.

The second sentence expresses the main thrust of the amendment. It recognizes that liberal activist courts are the real problem. If courts are prevented from ordering same-sex marriage or its equivalent, the question of arrangements less than marriage is left where it should be, to the determination of the people through the democratic process.

To try to prevent legislatures from enacting permission for civil unions by constitutional amendment would be to reach too far. It would give opponents the opening to say we do not trust the people when, in fact, we are trying to prevent courts from thwarting the will of the people. The history of the effort to obtain a constitutional amendment relating to abortion is instructive. There was a chance to get an amendment overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the state legislatures. Purists opposed to abortion would not settle for that. They demanded an amendment prohibiting abortion altogether. The result was that they got nothing. An amendment against judicial validation of same-sex marriages would similarly be doomed by pressing for too much.

Some proponents of gay marriage, such as Jonathan Rauch, have tried to split cultural conservatives by invoking federalism. Family law, he argues, has always been governed by the states. Though that is not entirely true, it is entirely irrelevant. A constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage would itself override federalism.

Activists are already trying to nationalize same-sex unions: Same-sex couples will travel to any state that allows them to marry or have civil unions, relying on the constitutional requirement that states give full faith and credit to the judgments of other states to validate their status in their home states. They will attack the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which seeks to block this. One way or another, federalism is going to be overridden. The only question is whether the general rule will permit or prohibit the marriage of same-sex couples.

Traditional marriage and family have been the foundations of every healthy society known in recorded history. Only in the past few decades of superficial liberal rationalism has marriage come under severe attack. The drive for same-sex marriage ordered by courts is the last stage of the assault. The Federal Marriage Amendment is an attempt, and perhaps the only hope, to preserve marriage as an institution of incalculable value.

Mr. Bork, a former federal appeals court judge and solicitor general, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

[A Navy Vet]

More Fedgov intrusion...this is a state matter.

Here's an Amendment for you Ms. Musgrave: Congressional term limits with in-session time restraints.