Defining Marriage

[RationalThought110]

What do you think of the idea of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage?

Gradually, courts keep forcing states to allow for gay marriage--usually called "civil unions."


*This thread needs to eventually be moved to the morality section
of the forum.  It will first go in the general section.

[kellymaureen]

Yes, marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman.

[Kiwi]

Yes, marriage is the legal union between a man and a woman.

Agreed 

[RationalThought110]

When Mike Huckabee made a recent statement about the constitution, it was obvious that it was in reference to supporting a constitutional amendment that defines marriage.  The "defense of marriage act" that was signed during Bill Clinton's administration didn't seem to have as much of an effect.


Yet, there were people condemning Huckabee claiming how he wants to change the entire constitution to conform to his religious beliefs.  That's not true.


McCain:


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/07/vote_likely_to_strain_falwellmccain_marriage.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/


McCain doesn't realize that most people (in states with gay marriage or civil unions) didn't ask for that law; rather it was imposed by activist judges. 


Huckabee wanted to "play nice" with McCain rather than criticize him on his voting record--this is legitimate; it isn't being negative.

[Dr. Dan]

It also depends on the definition...If the law is going to define gay marriage as somethign acceptable, then my vote is no...otherwise if it is going to define it between a man and woman, I woudl say yes.

[Daniel]

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But I don't think that having an Orwellian amendment is the right way to go about it.

[Dan]

Yes!

[nopeaceforland]

Yes!

[RationalThought110]

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But I don't think that having an Orwellian amendment is the right way to go about it.

So you were one of the people who voted no?  You don't consider it Orwellian when courts in some states have mandated gay marriage or civil unions?

[DownwithIslam]

Do the pieces fit in a male-male relationship?

[RationalThought110]

It also depends on the definition...If the law is going to define gay marriage as somethign acceptable, then my vote is no...otherwise if it is going to define it between a man and woman, I woudl say yes.

Obviously there would be no such thing as gay marriage in the law.

[Kiwi]

Do the pieces fit in a male-male relationship?

Well they try to make them fit

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

It should not have to come to this. Anyone with half a brain knows what marriage is. This business that WE should be the ones to justify that marriage is between one man and one woman is preposterous.

[newman]

It should not have to come to this. Anyone with half a brain knows what marriage is. This business that WE should be the ones to justify that marriage is between one man and one woman is preposterous.

I agree.

Whats next? Are old ladies going to be able to have their cats christened with the rest of us supposed prove that christening is for human children only?

[Kiwi]

In America they have dog weddings and cat weddings, people spend thousands of dollars on it.