2006-06-09 03:18:46 · 14 answers · asked by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think that it is an unprecedented attempt of the Federal Government to interject itself to an area which it has never been authorized to previously involve itself. As a Southerner, I am against it. I do not want marriage administered with all the efficiency of the Social Security Administration.
I am for the preservation of marriage. Please keep the Feds out of it. The Federal government's powers have been limited since its inception to regulating interstate commerce, international relations, civil rights, and similar areas where "Balkanization" of the 50 states would impede our country's effectiveness.
If you are so inclined to "defend marriage" please do so with your local and state government. People who disagree with you could at least go to another state in accordance with the dictate of their own conscience.
EDIT: To Grandma Susie down there... if any "marriage" or family has failed it is the fault of the members of that family. To randomly place blame on others for one's own faults is rather silly.
The Democrats never broke up any of my relationships... despite my most sincere requests to them.
2006-06-09 03:27:48 · answer #1 · answered by VanJimmy 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I favor civil unions for same sex relationships that have all the rights of marriage in our society.
I favor the FMA if Federal courts overturn State Constitutional amendments on federal constitutional grounds. This is an overreach of Federal judicial power that would need to be corrected. Other than that, leave it to the states and the laws currently on the books.
2006-06-09 10:31:05 · answer #2 · answered by optionseeker1989 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is necessary since judges tend to overrule what the state laws say who have passed legislation to define and determine what constitutes a marriage. Let the gays and lesbians call it whatever they want, but by definition, a marriage is between one man,called the husband, and one woman, called the wife. This also protects against claims that polygamy is legal. Certain rights should be afforded and reserved to married couples.
2006-06-09 10:29:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, since it didn't even pass a vote in the senate to bring it to the floor for a real vote, it's dead in the water...
I don't understand people who think "marriage is under attack" by acknowledging gay/lesbian couples. You go ahead and have your definition of marriage (one man and one woman), and let other people have their own. Other people doing something different doesn't harm you in any way, so what's the problem? Besides, "marriage" has had different definitions throughout history -- many of the men in the old testament, who are revered and respected by the "marriage is under attack" people, had multiple wives, concubines, etc. Then, marriage was defined as one man and as many women as he could get. They seem to have forgotten that...
2006-06-09 10:24:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the only way to protect the family. Already since it failed due to the Democrats, there are those wanting to institute polegamy. Every state that has voted on the issue, has overwhelmingly voted for an amendment. It is the democratic senators that vote against their own constituients who have done this terrible thing. I sure hope people remember this when it's time to vote.
2006-06-09 10:34:34 · answer #5 · answered by Grandma Susie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its a ludicrous sideshow invented to whip up the bigoted frenzy of the witless morons who form the majority of the voting public and divert attention from the fact that neither Democrats or Republicans have reasonable solutions to the real problems that face this country.
2006-06-09 10:43:15 · answer #6 · answered by Rillifane 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The majority of gay couples that I know have been together for years. Longer than any of the hetero couples I know.
I think anyone should be able to marry the person he or she loves.
Why should what you do in the privacy of your home affect me? Is my eternal life going to be damaged because two men who live in Arizona and are living together finally have an opportunity to marry? I don't think so. It's the way I live my life that will determine my eternity.
2006-06-09 10:25:21 · answer #7 · answered by Blue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bigotry has no place in the constitution.
2006-06-09 10:24:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Serious waste of legislature.
2006-06-09 10:22:06 · answer #9 · answered by StLLadyT 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think adults should be able to marry whoever they choose.
2006-06-09 10:47:19 · answer #10 · answered by Christy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋