Posted on 05/16/2002 4:36:11 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The Federal Marriage Amendment, which would alter the U.S. Constitution to redefine marriage as a union of only a man and a woman, was introduced on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday.
The text of the amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the 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."
"Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose," said Matt Daniels, Executive Director of the Alliance for Marriage. "But they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society."
According to the Alliance for Marriage, the amendment's principle backer, the first sentence of the amendment prohibits legislatures from using marriage to describe same-sex unions, and courts from recognizing any marriage between members of the same sex.
The second sentence ensures that "the democratic process decides the allocation of benefits and privileges traditionally associated with marriage," not the courts.
Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.), the primary sponsor of the amendment, said he is confident the measure will gain the overwhelming support of the American public.
"I am convinced that our nation will need to take the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution in order to preserve the legal status of marriage and the family for future generations," Shows said. "The Federal Marriage Amendment embodies some of the most deeply held values of the American people.
"These values transcend political boundaries in the same way that they transcend all racial, cultural and religious lines," Shows said.
The introduction of the amendment drew immediate criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union.
"With only a few exceptions, most of the anti-gay attacks in Congress are the legal equivalent of sticks and stones," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.
However, according to Anders, "This amendment is the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb."
"It will wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples," Anders said.
Anders added that the amendment would limit the power of states, counties, cities and towns to create their own laws on domestic partnership issues.
"The extreme measure would even prohibit state and local governments from making their own decisions on providing benefits to their employees," he said.
Shows maintained the amendment would only take power from the federal and state Supreme Courts, and give power to local municipalities to decide on issues of domestic partnerships.
"The Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable and measured response to an ongoing and accelerating abuse of power by the American courts," Shows said. "It leaves to the people, through their elected state legislatures - not the un-elected courts -- the right to determine who can receive benefits traditionally associated with marriage."
George Getz, spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said Congress has no business amending the Constitution
"The impulse of Democrats and Republicans to amend the Constitution so promiscuously poses a greater threat to Americans' freedom than a couple of gay people getting married," Getz said. "Besides, isn't listening to Capitol Hill politicians lecture us about the sanctity of marriage a bit like listening to Mike Tyson praise the virtue of chivalry? These people aren't exactly moral paragons."
Cosponsoring the bill are Reps. Dave Phelps (D-Ill.), Ralph Hall (D-Tex.), Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) and Chris Cannon (R-Utah).
E-mail a news tip to Jason Pierce.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
In short, it has little to do with "political correctness" and much to do with scientific inquiry. Medical science improves with more information; it doesn't get worse. That's why there's now a cure for polio.
One of the things that even some of these "recent" studies were based on is the Kinsey Report. It has now been proven that he falsified "documentation" and blatantly lied about other things.
As for medical science, yes, it has made vast improvements but I hardly think it appropriate to lump homosexuality in the same boat with polio. I've never spoken to a single person who overcame a bout with polio by seeking counciling while I DO know several FORMER homosexuals who have returned to a natural lifestyle (one is now married and a new father!) after professional (and in one case, religious) counciling. Also, in every single case, they say that there was some episode during their childhood or adolescent years that "convinced" them that they were homosexual (generally, either a weak or absent father figure or some sort of sexual event). All say their homosexuality was re-enforced by someone who also considered themselves to be homosexual. Just this limited exposure to this "disorder" tells me that it is not a physical/natural problem, but is either a true mental disorder or an instilled belief.
There is no basis for liberty or pursuit of happiness without a Biblical worldview.
You are correct that the Bible speaks against homosexuality and I respect your committment to your faith. The problem is, we are a pluralistic, secular-based Republic and you can't require non-Christians to follow Christian tenets.
Of course it can. It's Christian to oppose murder, theft, adultery, etc. In addition, if there is no higher authority to define morality, then why is one man's right to be homosexual more important than another man's right to be a bigot? Or do you support bigotry as a valid alternative lifestyle?
All legal decisions are moral ones. But if the morality is simply taken from the will of the people then the eventual result is anarchy.
I will agree with you that you can not cause a Christian worldview to be the correct worldview by legislating it be so. However, you can recognize that hte Christian worldview is the correct worldview and order your nation accordingly.
Shalom.
It is in my belief system, although using contraception creates other difficulties - primarily the desire to control ones own life rather than giving that control to G-d. However, each individual has to make his/her own decision in that regard based on his/her own relationship with G-d. (One example of an unanswered question is this: If two human beings decide to have sex and the sperm meets the egg, does that force G-d to create a life or does G-d still exercise His sovereign will in giving them a child. This is a very hotly debated subject.)
Now, an orthodox Roman Catholic will tell you that the union has not actually occurred unless inter-genital contact has occurred and, therefore, any barrier method of contraception keeps the union from happening. I don't find that in the Bible, but I won't ridicule any Catholic who supports that position. One day I'm going to get to ask G-d all my questions and I'm glad He'll have an eternity to answer them.
Shalom.
Something our founding fathers, obviously, believed they had accomplished and that worked quite well until roughly 1965.
Besides, if you need a constitutional amendment to feel better about your relationship with your spouse, then you don't have much of a marriage anyway.
If Shows was genuinely interested in preserving the legal status of marriage and family and blah blah blah, then he would push for an amendment which states that the Darva Congers of the world are prohibited from marrying the Rick Rockwells. Those two did more to denigrate and trivialize marriage than any homosexual could ever dream of doing.
Although it seems as if you are not listening, I will try to state this one more time. The attraction to the same sex IS the mental disorder. Of course there would be no "difference" in the "mental stability" between queers and heteros, because the study does not consider the same-sex attraction to be a disorder. When you conduct a study screening for "mental stability" and you define a trait as not being "mentally unstable" then you will conclude that both groups are "mentally stable". It would be like conducting a study on car accidents to determine their cause, but you already rule out alcohol as a factor. Or, not considering bipolar disorder as "mentally unstable". If you define out a trait or factor, of course your results wont show those traits or factors. Its that simple, really!
Also, understand that the mental disorder is simply same-sex attraction, and not other things one would typically think of when the term "mental disorder is used". This is why there is no rational argument to "lock them up".
The accurate statistics are the higher-rate-of-suicide, self-loathing, and rampantly promiscuous statistics. These people are mentally ill.
How about nature's rules about sex? Homosexual behavior is condemned unversally. Only people bereft of common sense (yourself?) think it's okey-dokey.
Le_Roy replied:
but your previous post is, to say it bluntly, a bald-faced lie (which would make you a liar, wouldn't it?)
Oh my! Were these not your posts?
RE Bestiality: Oh, well, no harm, no foul, … I guess you're safe there.
RE Pedophilia: - yes, there are exceptions to every rule
Liar huh?
Not sure why I bother to respond,
Facts are hard to deny, it’s completely understandable.
More personal beliefs again? You’re welcome to believe in the tooth fairy if you want, but it doesn’t make it true. Perversion by definition is: an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus . What part don’t you understand?
And my objection to beastiality has nothing to do with their being perverse - it's because there is a lack of consent.
Again another Emmylouism rears its ugly head. Bestiality not perverse? Is it because you don’t understand the definition of consent, how can an animal not meet the burden of simple acquiescence? If you call a dog not known to you, and he comes, is this consent? Animals give consent each and every time we approach or touch them; we know this from their fight/flight/bite responses.
So, I'm not condoning one "perversion" and rejecting another, so alas, I'll keep my key.
But you’ve not given any logical reasoning other than your anecdotal beliefs, I’m afraid your key remains unworthy of its owner.
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.