Should same sex marriages be baned from the constitution?

Question

Personally I think it should just because "marriage" is between a man and women, thats sacred. If we accept this what else will we accept. Its good to be openminded, but some things are wrong, thats just the way it is. I think if they really want they can have unions, but not no marriage. Like they say Adam married Eve...not Steve.

There's a difference between slavery and gay marriages, slavery is wrong that needed to be changed, gay marriages is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. We don't need anymore sins in this world

Answer 1

I agree--no marriage.

Answer 2

What many people fail to realize about the institution of marriage, is that the idea of it being "sacred", or between a loving man and a loving woman, is a relatively new concept. Yes, the institution of marriage is inherently religous. However, the reasons are not for what you think they might be. Religous implications were not because of an idea to "protect" the sacred bond between man and woman. Instead, the institution of marriage originated in the middle ages as a way to formalize a contract between two families whose children married (note: these marriages were not for love, but rather as a unification of monetary assets and political power). The reason the church orchestrated this was because at this time, it was the only intact politcal institution that was able to do this; there was really no political bureacracy until the early 13th and 14th centuries. Even by then, however, the church was still the de facto power in society.

As such, marriage wasn't typically enjoyed by the lower classes until much later in history, because "marriage" was used soley as a tool for the aristocracy. The idea of a "bourgeois marriage" (i.e. marriage for love) is a relatively new concept from the last three or four hundred years of the institution. Therefore, the people who decry that gay marriage destroys the institution fail to realize that the institution itself isn't really one that has enjoyed a history of "sacredness", but instead, it was a political tool for the rich.

In addition, I have studyied biblical history, and nowhere does it state that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That idea comes from church canon, ad dogma, the same that states that women can not hold any pivotal place in power in the church. In fact, the Bible (niether the Old or New Testament) doesn't really elaborate on marriage at all. I believe that marriage should continue to be associated with religion and faith (I am a person of faith), however, it is also a civil institution. For that reason, we should allow all legal adults to participate in it, or else we are dangerously close to violating both due process and the Equal Rights Ammendment. If certain churches choose not to allow gay marriages, then that is their freedom. If you believe that gay marriage is wrong, then don't marry them in your churches. However, the state can have no opinion about the "sanctity of marriage", because that is inherently religious concept. With a constitutional ban, that would legislate religous morality, which is dangerous, because of its universal effects on all U.S. citizens who may not share the same religous beliefs of our government. That is what our founding fathers feared (note: Church of England=state religion), and why they opted to separate church and state.

Answer 3

I don't understand why it is such an issue. If a man wants to marry another man why is that anyone's business? People need to quit sticking their noses where they don't belong and start dealing with issues that actually matter. People need to work on their "straight" marriages before worrying about everyone else. If marriage was so sacred, then people wouldn't cheat or get a divorce. Love is love, no matter where it comes from. People can't just pick and choose what they want from the bible just in issues that annoy them but not live by it. You either do all or none.

Answer 4

I personally believe that since marriage is something that is religious in nature the government shouldn't have any involvement in it at all. Marriage is a religious institution. Considering that the Constitution separates church and state then the government is in violation of the Constitution when they make any laws concerning marriage whatsoever. This would apply to tax laws as well. If I make a vow to God that I will Love someone til death do us part I am not making that vow to the government. I am making it to God. The government doesn't have a need to be involved in this. As far as same sex marriages go, I don't know of anyplace in the Bible where same sex marriage is practised or approved of. So if any branch of the government makes any laws or rulings for or against smae sex marriage then they are legislating religious beliefs which is in violation of the separation of church and state.

Answer 5

While I agree with you, this is NOT the sort of issue that should be part of the Consitution. At best, this should be a state issue. At worst, the legislature should pass (yet another) law regarding the subject.

Oh, and it isn't just Christians who oppose gay marriage. There are plenty of people out there (about 70% of America) who are opposed to gay marriage. Some are Christian. Some aren't. Some are republicans. Some aren't. To those who are pigeon-holing groups, isn't that exactly the behavior you abhore?

Answer 6

Adam married Eve? Who performed the ceremony? Where did they get the license? Did they have a nice reception? Imagine the bachelor party...oh boy!

For people saying that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong:

1. Do you support slavery? the bible does.

2. Do you support killing people for growing two different crops side by side? the bible says it's okay.

3. Do you support the killing of witches? the bible does.

4. Do you support the killing of unruly children? the bible does.

5. Do you support genocide? Your god sure is a big fan of it.


The last thing the US needs is bigotry in the constitution. We already have enough of it in everyday life. Does hate and ignorance really need to be codified?

Answer 7

No manner how technical you want to get marriage is a sacred bond between two people, not paper work. In the laws of uncleSam & many religions marriage is a legal bind between man and woman. That's just how it is, in my eyes I don't feel it will ever change.

Answer 8

I think you should not tell other people how to live their lives if it's not harming you personally. And the US Government should not get into the business of regulating marriages. Each state or city should have the right to regulate marriage in its own way without interference from Washington DC politicians. Live your life according to your own ethics, and let others do the same..

Answer 9

Doesn't our government have more important things to do. If you can come of with how this will effect your marriage, maybe you can change my mind. But the government should be worried more about the national debt, the budget short falls. Health care for every citizen. Ect. ect. and the clean marriage act is just a waste of time and energy.

Answer 10

No, the Constitution is for protecting our rights, not for taking rights away from people. We tried that with Prohibition, and it was a disaster.

Anyway, it's really none of our business if some states want to recognize different kinds of marriages. I mean, maybe I don't think people should paint their houses orange, but that doesn't mean I should try to amend the Constitution to prohibit orange houses.

Answer 11

how does this affect you? i don't get it...you're not really being open minded...from a government standpoint marriage should be nothing more than a contract between two people. it should pose no restriction as to who the two people are...

edit:
i don't care that 70% support the ban...the great thing about this country is that the interests of the minorities are protected as they should be.
remember, HUGE percentages of people were against abolishing slavery too...