Marriage = Man + Woman

USA Today ^ | 8/4/2003 | Marilyn Musgrave

[presidio9]

Pundits across the political spectrum agree that the Massachusetts Supreme Court is on the verge of inventing a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry legally. This decision will radically redefine the meaning and benefits of marriage. The question for the American people is whether we are willing to let the institution of marriage be redefined by a few unelected, unaccountable judges

[pabianice]

"Shriek! Homophobe!"

[proxy_user]

And what authority does Congress have to pass this law?

Normally, if they want to do something like this, they threaten to cut off Federal funds to any state that does not comply.

But if the states are willing to forgo the funds, they are sovereign and can define marriage however they wish.

[Right Wing Professor]

And what authority does Congress have to pass this law?

It's a proposed constitutional amendment, not a law.

[thoughtomator]

Amendment, not law... big difference. (And a mistake IMO - we should pursue this through impeachment of judges who invent ficticious 'rights' rather than amend the Constitution.)

[Texas_Jarhead]

I believe that it's a Consitutional Amendment.

[Tai_Chung]

From the USA Today? I'm shocked!

[AntiGuv]

And what authority does Congress have to pass this law?

The Constitution of the United States of America

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Mr Ducklips]

Homosexual "marriage". What a joke.

You can call a horse an elephant if you want to...but it ain't no elephant...never will be.

[presidio9]

Actually from Congresswoman Musgrave, not USA Today.

[Fzob]

The question for the American people is whether we are willing to let the institution of marriage be redefined by a few unelected, unaccountable judges — or should our strong preference to preserve traditional marriage be respected and defended.

Actually I think a far more realistic question is just how little noise will be made by the people in this country as our society gets redefined by activist judges and an agenda driven media. Will it be a simpering whimper or will it be just a sigh?

[longtermmemmory]

I support the FMA if the states just pass laws which allow same sex civil unions equal to marriage, what is the point? same sex civil unions are just as wrong as same sex marriage. (it would be as if heterosexual couples get these civil unions as a marriage without the marriage "word")

Would business be FORCED to adress civil unions or could they limit extending benefits to just married people?

Mass. Court must be holding back because they know they will be lynched. They must be waiting for a news story to provide cover for them. Stories like the Homosexual Bishop exposed as an out of control swinger does not help them.

From other threads, the Mass court is seeking to remove CHILDREN from marriage. The mass supreme court is attempting to make children an accessory in of a "reproductive couple" . Its very anti-mother, anti-father and especialy anti-child. If there is no children in marriage then there is no man/woman exclusivness. (might as well pass a law outlawing separation of night and day)

Write to your sentor and representative to let them know of your support for the Federal Marriage Amendment: (senate will be taking up the issue after recess)

http://www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov

[mhking]

Leave this on the state level.

Amending the Constitution is not something to be done lightly and on a whim.

The states can be trusted to do this. (Well, maybe not California, but would that surprise anyone?)

I can't see this getting through Congress without major changes and unwanted pork being foisted onto it.

[NittanyLion]

Leave this on the state level. Amending the Constitution is not something to be done lightly and on a whim.

Well said.

[Sir Charles]

If it eats peanuts and has a good memory, what matters what you call it? We need to keep peanuts away from horses and never let them experience anything they can remember. Keep horses and elephants pure to their nature, just like traditional marriage. Don't give in to anything that gives same sex marriage the slightest hint of recognition. Maybe the idea will atrophy.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Marriage has stood for centuries as a union between one man and one woman. If marriage is to be radically redefined, the decision should, at the very least, be made by the American people and their elected representatives, not mandated by unelected, unaccountable judges."

If, after thousands of years of precedent, the court cannot understand the strictly defined concept of marriage, then it is incompetent or totally corrupt.

If the court can engineer this, there is simply no limit to its powers. If this court creates these laws, they either have to be removed by the people or the law has to be ignored at the peril of govt retribution.

[EdReform]

Ping

[lilylangtree]

If the FMA passes, does this mean that queers will boycott America and push the international community to boycott America too just like they do the Boy Scouts of America? If so, would all queers please move to France so they can bother the largest muslim population in a European country?

[Cable225]

Leave this on the state level.

Ok, two queers get hitched in California where gay marriage is legalized. Six months later they move to Texas where it is not. Everything they had in California (next of kin status, recognition as a couple for tax purposes, other legal issues, etc.) are now out the window.

I'm curious how you would resolve that. I'm no fan of amending the Constitution either, but we're not talking about driver's licenses here.