The Federal Marriage Amendment

[weatherlover427]

First off, KC - Garrett is right. TYPING LIKE THIS ALL OF THE TIME IN YOUR POSTS is not good on the Internet because it usually signifies anger, resentment, yelling, or shouting; or other similar emotions or actions. Especially in sensitive topics such as this one.

Secondly, I am religious and I don't always "go by the book" (aka the Bible). I've been naughty enough lately by not reading my Bible like I should. But that's a whole other story.

I am sure that a lot of us don't go to every single church service that our church offers, that we don't read every single verse of the Bible, and that we have been naughty religiously speaking in other ways.

IMHO; and this is a touchy topic indeed; there is nothing wrong with being gay. There is also nothing wrong with gay marriages (or "garriages"). This country was based on FREEDOM, not "whatever the government dictates that we do (emphasis on dictates for a reason).

We are not a dictatorship-based government and country, we are a democracy. We have a lot more freedom than dictatorship-run countries do, and we should be thankful for that and use it to our fullest advantage. Including gay marriages.

If people want to do that, let them. Who cares if "omgoodness society sez dis is wrong!! shouldn't do it den!!" Things change, lifestyles change, so on and so forth. Therefore, change is a part of life and it should be treated as such. We should not shun change, no matter what.

We should not despise people for who they are or what they believe in. Everybody has a right to express their own opinions and believe in what they want to believe in. Even if it's not the "in thing" or "popular", they shouldn't be forced to "go with the flow" just because the majority thinks that those few are wrong.

[Wnghs2007]

Ok. I know. I made it that way on purpose. I was yelling and I admit it. I'm sorry. Please forgive. I was in a bad mood. (((Hugs))) Sorry for putting my bad mood out into my post. Friends. Thanks for the advice Garrett. I was about to go into tounges earlier. LMBO. Good night folks see ya on a brighter tomorrow.

--Peace---

[dryline22]

Marriage is a religious institution. The Government is, well, a government institution. KEEP THE TWO SEPERATE!! I personally think the entire system needs to be redone. Allow the gov't to grant civil unions to all couples. If you want a marriage, go to your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever and let them do it. Also, there should be no additional rights conferred to couples who go from civil union to marriage.

This is something I have thought about several times after first contemplating this issue. I completely agree with you, but unfortunately that seems to be a "radical" idea even in the early twenty-first century (certainly judging by the results of the poll so far ). When you really stop and think about it, the simple facts that A) marriage is a government-sponsored institution, and B) Shrub is opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, seem to be a clear violation of separation of church and state. But I suppose sometimes we have to let mere violations of basic founding principles slide for the sake of our sanctity...

The only way to resolve this problem without taking away the religious connotation of marriage would be exactly what you said: for government to get its nose out of marriage, which is a religious institution (as GW has reminded us so frequently), and switch to a system of civil unions for all. This would fully equalize government sponsorship of heterosexual and homosexual unions, while simultaneously allowing those concerned with religious implications to take care of that business on their own if desired. There's a solution that should keep everyone happy... with the exception of bigots whose real underlying goal is to use our government to coerce members of all belief systems to conform to theirs.

[Josephine96]

I will admit.. I do go to church and I do a lot of church functions not on Sundays.. But I am not a big reader of the bible..

Despite that.. I actually will also admit that even though I'm the only 1 who voted undecided {bless my heart lol}.. I think I am leaning more towards being against a Federal Marriage Amendment.

It should be up to the seperate states to decide. Besides.. This amendment not passing.. actually would help defend what America is all about.. FREEDOM..

Massachussets was bold for stepping up and approving gay and lesbian marriages and sooner or later, other states will follow suit.

Let the different states tread their own water on this.

[Guest]

Who is Shrub?

[Skywatch_NC]

Who is Shrub?

Just a mockery moniker for Bush.

[wx247]

Who is Shrub?

I didn't know either Jennifer.

[Josephine96]

LMAO about Shrub

[stormie_skies]

Someone in my church even tried to tell me that if it doesn't pass.. and a homosexual couple were to come to my pastor and ask to marry them and he denied it.. he could even be jailed. {I didn't quite understand that part.. but I'm sure I'll learn

Oooooo this bothers me This statement is absolutely FALSE. Even if the full legal definition of marriage was expanded to include same-sex couples it would have no effect under the law whatsoever on what couples a church marries. As tax-exempt religious institutions, churches are largely outside of discrimination laws and can do what they like, if I remember correctly. Churches turn couples away for marriage purposes all the time for reasons related to their beliefs, and their right to do that will not change.

This especially bugs me because I attended a small Christian school and was an avid church goer when homosexuals were added to anti-discrimination legislation in Wisconsin (sometime in the early to mid 80s .... the law may have been being renewed if it passed sooner than that, I was pretty young at the time). Students in the school and those of us who attended the church were told that the law would require the school and the church to hire gays and even pedophiles as teachers and sunday school helpers. Of course, the kids were terrified, and we were all instructed to write our representatives repeatedly asking for the legislation not to be passed, which we did. Only much later in life did I realize that those things were NOT true. I think its shameful to use scare tactics like that to push children (or even adults) into political issues that they dont fully grasp. Just one more reason why the modern organized church disturbs me so much

[stormie_skies]

Who is Shrub?


Just a mockery moniker for Bush.

Actually, he kind of gave it to himself.... W named the oil exploration company he owned in the late 70's Arbusto Energy. Try typing "arbusto" into Babelfish (http://babel.altavista.com/) and what comes up?

Shrub, of course. Arbusto is Spanish for shrub.

[Josephine96]

LOL.. Guess we just got our foreign language lesson of the day

[Aslkahuna]

To throw a little lightheartedness into the mix. I note that marriage is an institution, they say Love is blind therefore marriage has to be an institution for the Blind

Steve

[streetsoldier]

On 03 AUG, we in Missouri will be voting on a state amendment defining marriage as "between one woman and one man" in the primaries (Hizzoner "SpongeBob" Holden, our Governor, didn't have the guts to place it on the November ticket).

We are also voting to allow or ban a gambling casino "on land" in Branson...heretofore, all casinos had to be on a "vessel on any body of water", but this would open the way to making Branson another "mini-Vegas" if approved.

It will be interesting to watch the results nationwide...stay tuned for developments at a FoxNews channel near YOU.

[Josephine96]

So the thing about my pastor being put in jail is really just a scare tactic and won't happen..?

[stormie_skies]

So the thing about my pastor being put in jail is really just a scare tactic and won't happen..?

Nope, wont happen The only way federal or state anti-discrimination laws can be enforced on religious institutions is if a religious institution accepts federal or state funding. That was one of the biggest arguments concerning Bushs push for federal funding for "faith-based" charities - churches and religious charities want the extra funding, but they dont want to have to accept gays, members of other faiths, etc ....especially concerning employment.

But as long as your church isnt accepting federal funding (and most churches dont) it should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, especially concerning congregational relations.

The courts and other civil authorities may not enter denominational disputes over religious doctrine or practice. The state, for example, has no compelling interest in setting requirements for who may be considered clergy or whether a congregation may join (or be expelled from) a particular faith group.

http://www.religionwriters.com/public/faq/faq7.shtml

I would assume marriage falls into this catagory as well. Think about it - many denominations have rules concerning marriage that are not a part of civil law, for example, the Catholic church will not marry someone who has been married and then divorced. The state cannot force them to marry divorcees or recognize the new marriages in a religious sense, because they have no compelling reason to do so.

[Josephine96]

Thank you for the clarification Stormy..

[opera ghost]

Against. Very against. Just for the record.

[TexasStooge]

Any gay/lesbian marriage is not a marriage at all.

[GalvestonDuck]

Any gay/lesbian marriage is not a marriage at all.

I need more argument from you than that because it's not clear.

Are you saying some people aren't capable of being in monogamous, faithful, committed relationships? Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to be bound by marital ties? Are you just sticking to the basic definition that marriage=man+woman? What? Gimme more, Stooge. I don't get your statement.

[TexasStooge]

I still believe that a marriage should be beween a man and a woman, I don't care if it's a gay marrying a lesbian. All I'm saying is that the gay/lesban weddings are sick. The purpose of a proper marriage is to what...bare children, but from the way some people are acting, they don't want any children. However to some G&L couples, they said they can adopt, but that's just making the kid(s) twisted in their minds, they're trying to figure out who's the real mother or father.