Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/26/03 | Susan Jones

Posted on 11/26/2003 2:47:02 PM PST by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-246 next last
To: honeygrl
"I agree that this is a misuse of constitutional power."

And your opinion of judicial power is?

61 posted on 11/26/2003 6:17:03 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Homosexuality is a life-style by choice.

So is marriage.

62 posted on 11/26/2003 6:18:27 PM PST by thinktwice (America is truly blessed ... with George W. Bush as President..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Agitate
Thanks, what a crock, huh!
63 posted on 11/26/2003 6:21:56 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: I_love_weather
I agree with you it's a misuse of what the Constitution says, however not in defense of sodomy. The issue is already covered in the Constitution

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The citizens of the state of North Carolina along with many other states had laws against sodomy. The only thing that happened here was that liberal judges overstepped their bounds. If an Amendment is to be passed, pass one that reiterates and strengthens the 10th Amendment. Else we're going to have a Constitution with Amendments attached for every sick practice that comes along

64 posted on 11/26/2003 6:22:39 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The only way this is going anywhere is if Bush takes it to the American people and asks them to hold there representitives feet to the fire.
65 posted on 11/26/2003 6:24:25 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Where does the word "lifetime" fit into that definition? "

Thanks for the red herring. Really wasn't hungry, however.

66 posted on 11/26/2003 6:26:49 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: woodyinscc
"but your thought process is flawed."

I think "thinktwice" needs to think again.

67 posted on 11/26/2003 6:29:29 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
"Where does the word "lifetime" fit into that definition?"
Thanks for the red herring.

Well if there is going to be a definition of "marriage" in the US Constitution don't you think it ought to be a complete definition? Or do you think marriage is just a temporary union for the sake of, what, tax benefits?

68 posted on 11/26/2003 6:31:22 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
This is something best left up to the states, even if some states don't do things the way some want them to.

Let's say Mississippi bans gay marraige and Massachusetts has gay marraige. Now imagine a married homosexual male working in Boston gets transfered to Biloxi, Mississippi. Are the couple still married? Well this is why it's a federal problem.

And I'm sick of the power of the national, I can't bear to call it federal anymore, government.

69 posted on 11/26/2003 6:33:15 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Can you "recall" Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
I don't see how this amendment can possibly fail, unless Ted Kennedy and his Democrats have the guts to filibuster it.

Senator "Doll Hair" Biden has already said that he will oppose it. He also has stated the he believes homosexual marriage is inevitable.

70 posted on 11/26/2003 6:34:25 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"Else we're going to have a Constitution with Amendments attached for every sick practice that comes along"

You may be right. But Queer Nation is using the courts and this issue as the tool for destroying the US value system.

If the ammendment is strictly limited to the definition of marriage, what's the problem?

71 posted on 11/26/2003 6:34:38 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The proposed constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Good. Also it should say "and who are not immediate blood relatives".

72 posted on 11/26/2003 6:36:32 PM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Constitution should only be used to expand individual rights, not to single out a group of Americans for discrimination, Birch added.

Homosexuals can marry the person of the opposite sex. Same way as everyone else. They demand an additional right.

73 posted on 11/26/2003 6:38:06 PM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
"Well if there is going to be a definition of "marriage" in the US Constitution don't you think it ought to be a complete definition? Or do you think marriage is just a temporary union for the sake of, what, tax benefits?"

Why not include health benefits as well? For that matter, how about 401k?

If you're looking for truth you're a lost soul.

Keep it simple. Marriage is 1 man 1 woman. Do you need a further explanation?

74 posted on 11/26/2003 6:39:34 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
and interfering with natural human sexuality is not one of them

Natural? What do you mean by that?

75 posted on 11/26/2003 6:39:52 PM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
It is clear to me that the purpose of the marriage amendment is religious discrimination -- protection of a religious "sacrament" by Christians -- against homosexuals.

Why do you care about religious discrimmination when you are a athiest?

Think about it.

76 posted on 11/26/2003 6:41:00 PM PST by BureaucratusMaximus (if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
"So is marriage"

Of course. A choice available to a man and a woman, regardless of their religious orientation. You're new at this, aren't you? Using words such as 'Hitler' and 'homophobia' which are guaranteed to shut of debate. Or do you think your 'in your face' approach will endear people to your cause?

77 posted on 11/26/2003 6:44:05 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
If the ammendment is strictly limited to the definition of marriage, what's the problem?

Because next you're going to have an amendment barring something else, then something else, and so on. Heck at the moral rate this nation of states is going we're going to need an amendment barring beastiality sooner or later

My point is that many states had these laws on the books. Granted in some places they weren't enforced, and I think for the very reason that God fearing men and women realized with the air of irresponsibility in our courts their laws would probably be overturned. Such laws weren't PC. But you reinforce the 10th Amendment and you've put yourself and your state in an actionable position not only against the sodomites but more than one or two other questionable federal rulings.

The states that had these laws on the books would be able to reinstitute them, the states that didn't, well most of those states are written off in my book anyway. Some of the citizens of those states are going to do what they want no matter what an Amendment says. However they would be wary to go into a state that has reinstituted its sodomy laws and is actively prosecuting them

78 posted on 11/26/2003 6:44:15 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
I think "thinktwice" needs to think again.

"thinktrice"?

79 posted on 11/26/2003 6:44:31 PM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
thinktwice, you've posted some interesting ideas, do you mind if I ask you some questions? Seriously.

1)What religion (if any) are you?

2)Are you male or female?

3)What is your current sexual orientation?

Just curious..

80 posted on 11/26/2003 6:46:42 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson