Can we handle a couple more? Sure we can...

Political Wrinkles House of Representatives
Session: 2007
Debate: 2
Introduced: 12/22/07 (we work even when our political leaders don't)
Vote: 1/22/08
Issue: Federal Defense of Marriage Amendment
Focus Question: Do we need an Amendment to the Constitution to defend marriage?

Some Research Links:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic

__________________

Absolutely not. Discrimination should not be legally enshrined.

In addition, it would improve the quality of life for no one, but hurt the quality of life for many.

Then again, since a law as obviously discriminatory as this one would not pass scrutiny for Constitutionality, the only way to make it work would be to actually write it into the Constitution.

Good luck getting that passed, though.
The American people are far from perfect, but we are not quite THAT bigotted, thankful.

Obviously for me this is a very personal issue. Forgive me if I become passionate about it. I find it outrageous that some are willing to go so far as to create a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that prevents homosexual relationships from being treated equally to heterosexual relationships within the scope of the law.

I see this as an attempt by the 'Religious Right' to flex their political muscle instead of using the good sense God gave them when it comes to loving unconditionally. This measure is not a loving measure nor it is something I think Jesus would do. We've had the "WWJD" revolution yet I don't think that many take it seriously. It's not "What Would Jesus Do?", it's become "What Would Jerry (Falwell) Do?".

I think that the policy is flawed on so many fundamental levels that the Representatives who sponsored it should have their head checked. Making heterosexual and homosexual relationships equal under the law is better for the country than what we currently have. This issue has become so hot, not because homosexuals are demanding special rights, but because the fundamentalists want to legislate morality.

I'm sure there will be more to come.

__________________

OK...I see I'm going to be the guy who gets to take his socks off and stomp on the broken glass...

Keep in mind that I believe the term "marriage" in the eyes of the state is NOT a marriage at all, but a contract...I find it severly hypocritical that many couples include a marriage ceremony in a religious institution that also includes a state contract, but divorce is ONLY through the state and not a part of the same religious institution that married them in the first place...

How conveeeeenient...

"Marriage" is much different than that of any "union" of same-sex couples in that mating and copulation is never existent in the latter...

If people are using the term "marriage" in the state aspect of a contract, I'm for it...

But I would never call it marriage..."Civil unions" is pretty generic, and I'd think another term would be used, but I'm not against the term itself...

Bur definitely not "marriage"...Calling a dog's bark a "meow" doesn't make it a "meow"...It's nothing more than a way to make something that is not a social norm...a social norm...

I will now stand behind bulletproof glass and await rebuttals...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Cnredd,

On this issue I have learned, over time, that you specifically are not the enemy and despite our vehement disagreement on certain parts of the issue you generally treat the issue with the respect that it deserves on both sides. Now, in response...

1) Regardless of what we believe, marriage has multiple definitions. Currently, the definition that we are discussing is the public one. The one used by the United States Federal Government, a non-religious entity. I would even agree that the origin of the word is generally believed to have religious connotation however since the word become public property (ie since it was put into the legal realm by religious people and state rights/benefits are distributed because of it.), it has taken on a whole new life. Marriage, in terms of law, is nothing more than a social contract recognized by the federal government, state government, and local government with a set of rights, benefits, and responsibilities to accompany the entrance of the contract.

2) I agree with Cnredd that "marriage" in the status quo, in terms of religious importance, is a joke (people not upholding their responsibility), but this of course isn't because of gay people. Generally the problem can be traced back to straight people who have recklessly entered into a marriage without forethought or concern and place little value on the institution. So yes, thanks to the actions of heterosexuals the institution both legally and religiously has been demeaned.

3) The argument that a union between heterosexuals is somehow vastly different than a union between homosexuals is way flawed. A child is not required for heterosexuals to get married. Hell, in the vast majority of states sex is not required to get married and thanks to the Constitution, a 'marriage' in one state is just as good as another. So legally speaking, the relationships are not different.

4) I don't care what term is used, I simply think that the term should be the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals when it comes to the law.

Society is bringing about the change Cnredd. Will homosexuals be the norm? God I hope not. lol That would ruin the unique nature of the culture. But will society begin to treat homosexuals like normal people? Yes, and without a second thought. The question is how fast to we get to that point and how do we foster understanding instead of craziness.

__________________

... just for the record, Catholics DO require a church sanctioned "divorce" before the parties can be remarried. Of course, you have to pay for it.

just saying

Sorry to get this one started late. Real life caught up with me...

My Vote: NO

My Reason: It's divisive and unneeded.

__________________

If anything, it's a state issue and not a federal one...

Massachusetts allowing it is 100% proof...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I didn't count your vote on the tax issue even though I knew which way you were supporting. The reason I didn't count your vote is you didn't say "I vote Yea or Nay". The same will be true with this one. I wouldn't want to be accused of creating votes that aren't there.

__________________

nay...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd