What is the Marriage Protection Amendment protecting us from? (It's not ignorance, that's for sure.)?

Question

Read reply from my friend:
Thank you for responding to my letter. Just one main question, who is being protected in this Marriage Protection Amendment? Because it does not protect me as a bisexaul woman. And who are we being protected from? Those evil gays and lesbians who want equal human rights? You should really answer those questions. And what about those other religions that let all people in love marry? Should your religion top theirs because there are more of you? And being that I am bi and a Christian, what about my right to marry whoever I love?? Another thoughtful response would be great, just so I can understand where one of my senators is coming from.

Senator Johnny Isakson wrote:
I am disappointed that the Senate refused to proceed to allow an up-or-down vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment. I believe it is important for the sanctity of marriage and for the laws of this country that we have a seamless definition of marriage within the Constitution... (???)

Answer 1

It's always amused me to hear people argue for laws protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, completely forgetting that anything that "sanctity" is an inherently religious issue.

The Marriage Protection Amendment is designed to enforce one particular religion's definition of marriage, just because that religion happens to be in the legislative majority at the moment.

Every single argument in favor of limiting marriage boils down to a religious disapproval of certain types of relationships. And for some reason, the religious majority doesn't see any problem with enforcing their moral beliefs as a matter of law, because they happen to be in the majority.

If they really want a uniform definition of marriage, I've got one that will make everyone happy. How about a Constitutional Amendment that (1) eliminates the term "marriage" from any secular laws, making "marriage" only a religious term, and (2) converts all of what used to be marriages to "civil unions", and (3) allows any two consenting adults to register their civil union with the state, and get all state benefits that would otherwise be provided to people who were married.

Any two consenting adults who want to get a civil union can do so, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether incest should or should not be allowed, so let's just say not allowed for purposes of this proposal.

If people want to get married, that's between them and their church. The "sanctity of marriage" is thus forever protected against government meddling, since "marriage" no longer has any legal meaning under the law.

And gay couples now are treated no differently under the law than anyone else, since everyone 'only' gets a civil union, as far as the law is concerned.

If the big issue is regarding terminology and the sanctity of the term "marriage", then religious folk should be completely in favor of this amendment. It guarantees that they can have the term "marriage" all to themselves, based on whatever their religion defines it to be, without any trouble from those equal protection advocates.

And if this doesn't solve the problem, then their argument isn't really about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" at all. It's just that they don't like certain behavior because it is against their religious beliefs, and they want to be able to enforce those religious beliefs as a matter of law.

Answer 2

No, the two sexes are taken care of the two. the actual threat in social law by making use of the Courts around that's, if "sexual orientation" is a civil good, then pedophilia won't be able to be made unlawful. in actuality, based upon different circumstances, we would haven't any good to no longer hire a room to a pedophile, it may be discrimination. under loony Libs concept, a baby has a incredible to settle on morals and faith break away their mothers and fathers (at time of beginning), so they have a incredible to do as they please with our infants. it is going to bring about oldsters being jailed who refuse to permit a pedophile have their way with their baby - think of it truly is impossible, think of back. "No ethical certainties" potential basically that. In Roman Empire days, a Lord ought to ask for a sprint toddler, and function one introduced. The Lib Elitists are basically attempting to get their rights back.

Answer 3

I'm a straight woman married to a man. The marriage protection act won't protect my marriage.

Actually, I think it lessens my marriage because it refuses to allow people in love with someone of the same sex to get married. Love must not be very important to the people who wrote and sponsor the marriage protection act.

Answer 4

The reason marriage needs to be protected has nothing to do with gays. Traditional marriage has been the cornerstone of civilization since the beginning of time. Research has shown its benefits for children and society. Isn't that worth protecting?

Answer 5

what i think is crazy is that the bases of marriage in general have changed. think about it, 60 years ago men where the bread winners and women kept the house and took care of the children, it was liek that for years and there were lots of infidelities. marriage was based on what society was liek back then. society has changed, i mean if poeple love eachother why is marriage a prob? it shouldn't be i mean you can't help who you love. why is it that that phrase can work in a situation where a man is beating a woman and she stays with him becasue she "loves" him but they say it is bullshti when it comes to a man having feelings for another man. i mean come on people get with the times!

Answer 6

The law is mainly symoblic and is actaully of little consequense. All it means is that for purposes of federal law, marriage must be between a man and women. So you can't file joint return for your federal taxes with a same-sex partner. Most family law is based on state law, and the DOMA has no effect on that.