[RobertM]

This is one of the reasons we are hated throughout the world. The world looks at us and say's they have no morals.

[Jim Noble]

the time is now for Republicans to act to save this most basic institution of this country

Traditional marriage has 3 elements:

1) It is permanent (no divorce)

2) It is sexually exclusive (adultery is a felony)

3) It is between a man and at least one woman.

Which of these does your amendment restore?

[MJR DAD]

I agree. Now is the time to make this a political. Now is the time to stop it dead in it's tracks. God did not create Adam and Steve... or Andria and Eve... Constitutional ammendment or bust... Sign me up.

Mike
iamdadto7@yahoo.com

[RJCogburn]

Not interested. This is not appropriate for a Constitutional Amendment.

No, I am not in favor of gay "marriage".

[Grut]

Marriage has not been taken seriously since the 1960s; consider how society accepts no-fault divorce or single moms, for instance. Against this backdrop, it's hard to get exercised over gay marriage and I suspect that conservatives who do will just get themselves written off as flogging a dead horse.

Besides, what harm does it do? I can see the Christian Viciousness movement flogging this particular dead horse, but in a world where most people don't know the names of the people two houses down the block or on the next floor of the apartment building, what those people are doing doesn't set a very important example.

We ought to be incensed about the courts getting above themselves, but that's another issue.

[WOSG]

Ahem ... Now is the time to START IMPEACHING JUDGES.

Their abuse of the law has gone too far.

[billbears]

No, no, and no again. Enforce the Amendments already on the document and you won't have this problem. But don't worry, I'm in the minority. 'Conservatives' will rally to your cry and the absolute genius of the Constitution, that does cover practically everything, will take another hit

[gridlock]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Government tinkering with marriage will only make matters worse. Government tinkering with just about anything only makes matters worse.

It is time for social conservatives to realize that government involvement of marriage will inevitably lead to the destruction of the institution, and that it is time to get government out of the marriage business.

The natural tendency is to try to use government to fight a tendency in society that we oppose. But every time we grant government power, that power will eventually be used against us. The only way to save marriage is to eliminate the ability of the government to define it. Once the government is able to define marriage, the destruction of marriage is inevitable.

Heterosexual marriage will always predominate in society because it makes sense. The benefits for the purposes of raising a family will always make heterosexual marraige an attractive life-style. Marriage of people in non-family situations will always be an echo of that predominant social institution. But the echo cannot be stomped out without destroying what makes the echo in the first place.

Social conservatives must resist the temptation to use the power of the state to stomp out what they do not like. Remember that the state likes us a lot less than anybody else. Better to let marriage be an arrangement between individuals, and heterosexual marriage will inevitably win in the marketplace of ideas.

When did social conservatives become so timid that they feel the need to have Big Brother Government fight their battles for them?

[armadale]

Yes, as long as marriage can also be protected against such marital travesties as Liza & David and the like.

[azhenfud]

It's the beginning of the end for the Mass. Supreme infidels. It is now the job of the legislature to reign in their court judges, and possibly impeach those who sit on that bench.

The judges ruled in favor of perverting the institution of marriage, as was elloquently stated concerning another case, let's see them enforce their opinion.

Those judges should be impeached, disbarred, and made the laughing stock of old Mass., because their credibility just performed a CFIT.

[rudypoot]

The constitution is about limiting government and recognition of our natural rights, not about social issues. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. If you want a specific definition of marriage then get congress to pass a federal law.

[TigersEye]

Don't mess with the Constitution.

[ppaul]

TODAY.....

Mass. gay marriage ban overturned BREAKING NEWS, Associated Press Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. THE RULING closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led to its Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage. The Massachusetts high court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion. The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote. BACKGROUND TO LAWSUIT The lawsuit was filed by seven gay couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after their requests for marriage licenses were denied. A Superior Court judge dismissed their suit in May 2002, ruling that state law does not convey the right of marriage to gay couples, and the couples appealed. The high court heard arguments in March, and hundreds of organizations and individuals across the country filed briefs on both sides of the argument. The court had three options: instructing the state to give marriage licenses to the seven couples; upholding the state's authority to deny same-sex couples the right to wed; or referring the matter to the Legislature. The Legislature already considering various competing proposals to outlaw or to legalize gay marriages or civil unions. Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples. OTHER STATES Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage. In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license -- a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples. The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary. Homos Gary Chalmers, left, and Rich Linnell, right, both of Northbridge, Mass., are among the plaintiffs in the gay marriage case.

[Belial]

Disallowing homos to partner under the law isn't going to save marriage.

Couples understanding what a lifelong commitment means, will.

[finnman69]

What a platform for the RATS!:

Higher Taxes, Don't fight the terrorists, let guys marry other guys.

A "perfect storm".

[RightWhale]

Do not further modify the Constitution.

[apackof2]

Here is one site, there are others, (sorry I forgot how to post a link)

On Sunday, Sept. 7, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., addressed the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the Lynchburg, Va., church I have pastored since its founding in 1956. I wish every Christian in America could have heard this courageous lady explain why she has sponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment, the proposed constitutional amendment designed to preserve the sanctity of marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman.

In the present socio-political climate, it is not widely popular to be promoting this traditional idea, but Mrs. Musgrave is boldly spearheading the effort to permanently safeguard marriage from activist judges and politically correct lawmakers.

Presently, more than 80 cosponsors have signed onto the bill. She said that Christian activists will play a large role in seeing the bill passed.

"Many people think Christians should be quiet in the public square; they think that Christians should not have a voice in the public square," Mrs. Musgrave said. "But I don't agree with that. I think it is very important that we have our voice heard in that square."

Of course, changing the Constitution will by no means be an easy thing. An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by 38 states. In our favor is the fact that 36 states have already enacted laws banning homosexual marriage. Furthermore, in 1996, when Congress passed a federal ban on homosexual marriages, 85 percent of the Senate and 79 percent of the House voted for the ban.

Mrs. Musgrave, who has been married to her husband Steve for 35 years – they met at Bible camp as teen-agers – noted that, even in traditionally liberal states like Hawaii and California, ballot initiatives for homosexual marriage have been voted down by the people. This, she believes, is a positive indication that her Federal Marriage Initiative will ultimately be passed.

Mrs. Musgrave said that while marriage has become trivial to many Americans (our 50 percent divorce rate serves as evidence), it is important for those who revere the sanctity of marriage to protect it.

"Just because the institution of marriage is not held in the respect that we should give it does not mean that we should do away with the definition of marriage," said the 54-year-old mother of four and grandmother of five.

Mrs. Musgrave added that it is the role of the Christian community to protect marriage, specifically within the church setting.

"We need to ask God's protection over our marriages," she said. Mrs. Musgrave also encouraged older Christians to set a "good example for young people," adding that those with years of successful marriage "need to counsel young people and help them choose their mates wisely."

In closing, Rep. Musgrave asked Christians nationwide to help her ensure that marriage remains safe.

I agree that the only way to put marriage out of reach of fanatical judges and militant lawmakers is to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, period.

Polls indicate that 80 percent of Americans believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but the aggressive forces against it are actively working to redefine marriage and the family. We absolutely must work together to keep the sanctity of marriage out of their reach, forever.

Once again, I urge my friends to sign our petition to preserve traditional marriage. We already have hundreds of thousands of signatures, but are seeking 1 million Americans who will support the Federal Marriage Amendment. The petition, with your name affixed, will be forwarded specifically to your U.S. representative and two U.S. senators, as well as to the entire Congress and to President Bush.

Rep. Musgrave has expressed great thanks to those who have already signed the petition. For those who have yet to sign the petition, I urge you to join us in the effort to preserve marriage in America.

http://www.onemanonewoman.com/ .

[Eagle Eye]

This issue is NOT a Constitutional matter.

[ChefKeith]

Messing with the U.S. Constitution is a very dangerous thing to do, there are those out there that would just love to gut it of the 1st/2nd/4th/5th Amendments.

The only thing that will solve the problem You are wanting to fix is MORALS.

[familyofman]

Ammendments:
Marriage
Balanced Budget
Ten Commandments

Just add your ammendments here, it will make you feel better. Even though none of them will pass - this is free therapy for anger management. If the ammendments don't make it - hold your breath until everyone agrees to do things your way.