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.
It may be only a few, but they are a very loud few. Perhaps I should have said, 'Bible believing' Christians since not all who claim the title of Christian beleive in the Bible.
If you look at the press after September 11, 2001 you'll see how much Christians are hated. Look at all the attempts to paint Bible believing Christians and Islamic Terrorists in the same category.
Shalom.
ABSOLUTLY!!! I was just thinking the exact same thing. Rome was a Republic when it was greatest. Then the government created subsidies. Then a little later, sexual depravity and perversion became socialably acceptable then, the fall of the Holy Roman Empire! Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... (I won't even get started on Sodom and Gomorah...wait, yes I will). Where do these folks (the Sodomites! - I refuse to let them alter my native language so that "gay" now means "queer" and not happy...) get the idea that just because they have a few circuits not making good contact, that we all need to kow-tow to them and change the very basis of our Country? After all, the nuclear family is the foundation of any stable government, especially one that loves liberty. Even Hitler, Stalin and Marx recognized this by seeking to remove children from the influence of their families in order to bring about change to their respective countries in the shortest amount of time. Without the traditional/nuclear family, our once free and stable republic will be on a much faster downhill course than now. Just MHO.
I concur with one slight change. I am coming more and more to believe in the value of the extended family. My extended family is scattered all over the globe, as were the families of my parents. How I wish I had grown up around grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. And how I wish my children could do so.
Shalom.
I also believe that many homosexuals (as are many people) are spiritually challenged and instead of filling up their lives with something spiritual (God, if you will), they find their 'validation' through sex. They view any and all things even slightly religious as something that threatens to de-valuate them.
But keep in mind that the real enemy here is the socialist, anti-religion crowd, not specifically homosexuals. Homosexuals as a demographic group are, for all intents and purposes, "victims" waiting to be exploited. I don't think that the "founding gay fathers" if there is such a thing, intended for the homosexual movement to take on the Scouts, Salvation Army, schools, etc. Didn't they just want to be left alone so they could have as much sex with each other as they wanted?
I don't think so. That's what they have always had. They want to be validated.
Shalom.
Since I have a limited intelligence and limited knowledge I get my definitions from the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that sex is for the purpose of uniting a man and a woman into "one flesh." They can be united without procreating, as happens with infertile couples. But they can not procreate without becoming united. That's a good design since the union of a man and a woman, acting as parents, is the best environment for raising children.
Shalom.
I want for homosexuals to be able live in this country unmolested, which is what I thought they wanted. But the politicization of their movement has, in effect, had the opposite result.
I guess this is one more reason that I was blessed to be born in the "south". Families here still tend to be close-knit and we all visit regularly and value our time spent with those of the older generations. Our children learn a respect for their elders and their life experiences simply from being exposed to them. You are correct, I must include extended family in my observations. I must admit, that, in light of the present conversation, that I didn't think that far afield.
Actually, I would be willing to bet it was more to appease the NEA because he learned a lesson from Jimmy Carter who was backed by the NEA and teacher's unions for agreeing to created the federal department of education and, thus, gained the support of the largest union in the country. Also, Bush seems he_l-bent on appearing "compassionate" no matter what calamity upon the nation that he exacerbates by doing so.
No, not Biblically. In the Bible there is no definition of a marriage ceremony. A man and a woman become married by having sex with one another. This point is reinforced in the New Testament when Paul reminds us that when you have sex with a prostitute you become one with her.
You can break the union after you have created it (to your harm), but if you have sex with someone you are united with them.
I don't know if you fully addressed her point. Is sex, after a man and a woman have "united," morally correct if its aim is sensual pleasure with a specific desire to not have children?
If its only aim is sensual pleasure, it is wrong. But if the aim of the sensual pleasure is to deepen the marriage relationship then it is right.
Specifically, if a man has sex with his wife just because he is aroused, but actually has no interest in talking with her or deepening his emotional and spiritual relationship with her, that is nothing more than legalized rape and it is not right. Both of them should enjoy their sex, but the sex should not be the only thing that they enjoy together. If it is, they are in the wrong and should repent and work to restore their marriage.
Shalom.
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.