Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment

[bradedit]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Just thought this should be here also if we allow the other petition to stay!

[Rockabillie]

Yeah, I don't like people messing with my Constitution--that's frightening.

[whitequeen96]

God, why can't people just live their own lives and stop minding everyone else's business?! If gay people want to get married, let 'em!

[blueaguave]

I don't why the gays are suddenly going nuts and pushing this.
Then again, I don't like the constitution being messed with either.

[chippers21]

I think we may need this amendment if we want to keep the institution of marriage intact. Marriage is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children" . I firmly believe that to have a marriage you must have a man and a woman. I do not care if 2 men wish to live together. That is their business. 2 women- same thing. But I believe that we should not call it a marriage.
(At the same time it is fine with me if we give these same sex unions the same rights as a marriage when it comes to taxes and health care.)
I had to laugh when I read that several of you do not want the Constitution messed with. We have been messing with/messing up the meaning of the Constitution for a long time.

[mayor]

Originally Posted by chippers21

I had to laugh when I read that several of you do not want the Constitution messed with. We have been messing with/messing up the meaning of the Constitution for a long time.

I know! My jaw hit the floor when I read this, too! Let's see, I guess congress never should have messed with the constitution at all. After all, who needs the FIRST AMMENDMENT anyhow? Free speech.. bah.

And all those other ammendments.. women's right to vote, changing voting age to 18,
right to bare arms... who needs 'em. Golly gee, I can't believe our government has messed with our constitution!

This motivates me to go and teach my children a bit more about our nation's history and what the constitution is all about, and to refresh them on how words have meaning. For example, the word "marriage".

I don't know that anyone has thought redefining marriage through to its logical conclusion. And I know a couple people on a message board don't speak for the nation, but if this is prevailing opinion, America is through within a generation.

Mayor

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by mayor

I don't know that anyone has thought redefining marriage through to its logical conclusion. And I know a couple people on a message board don't speak for the nation, but if this is prevailing opinion, America is through within a generation.

Mayor

How so?

[FUNdamental]

I thought the constitution gave rights to the people, not restricted peoples’ rights!


“Let them get married; why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us?”


Jack McCoy (fictional)
Assistant DA
Manhattan,

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

“Let them get married; why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us?”

that was funny

[Taxman]

[QUOTE=FUNdamental]I thought the constitution gave rights to the people, not restricted peoples’ rights!

The Constitution provides the framework of government. There are plenty of restrictions in it.

[chippers21]

[QUOTE=Taxman]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

I thought the constitution gave rights to the people, not restricted peoples’ rights!

The Constitution provides the framework of government. There are plenty of restrictions in it.

LOL With no restrictions we would need only a one-line Constitution: Everything is legal for everyone, so have at it.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

I thought the constitution gave rights to the people, not restricted peoples’ rights!

Is this statement a joke? If that's the case, then why are we using the constitution to restrict when and where people can practice their religion?

[mayor]

Originally Posted by monkee

Is this statement a joke? If that's the case, then why are we using the constitution to restrict when and where people can practice their religion?

Don't confuse the argument with facts! It isn't tolerant. ;-)

Mayor

[monkee]

Originally Posted by mayor

Don't confuse the argument with facts! It isn't tolerant. ;-)

Mayor

LOL, Mayor! So sorry!

[Rockabillie]

The amendments to give the right to vote to women and blacks, where times when we EXPANDED rights to more parties. Whereas before only white men could vote, we EXPANDED RIGHTS so that more people had EQUAL rights. Since the Constitution is basically about giving equal rights under the law, any refinement that gives MORE PEOPLE EQUAL RIGHTS, it is in keeping with the original intention of the Constitution.

Gays are asking to be treated equally with other people and have the SAME RIGHT to marry. They are not asking for different unique rights compared to other people, but the SAME EQUAL RIGHTS under the law.

An amendment to the Constitution to state that some people can not have equal rights under the law is not fitting with the nature of the Constitution. We learned our lesson with Prohibition and then rectified it.

When the Mormans wanted to make Polygomy legal for them, they were asking for special treatment, for extra rights to be granted to them compared to the rest of Americans. Rightly, it was not granted.

Gays are simply asking to have the same rights as other Americans, the right to marry.

Equal rights are only equal if everyone has the same rights. If certain rights are granted to some groups and not others depending on if you like them or not, that isn't equal rights, that's favoritism and discrimination.

It doesn't matter how the dictionaly defines marriage. A dictionaly provides a definition of a word based on the historical cultural meaning. It changes with the changes in culture. A dictionay definition has no legal standing and certainly doesn't represent any Constitutional rights or lack thereof, merely a recording of the historical cultural meaning attached to words.

Actually the Constitution is not meant to provide for restrictions. It defines our RIGHTS. Anything NOT listed in our rights can then be restricted by federal, state, or local laws. Interpretation is left to the US Supreme Court.