2007-09-30 18:56:51 · 9 answers · asked by Jay L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Problem is.... A few unscrupulous people have been trying to re-define marriage.... The fed needs to address this issue because the word marriage is now and has always been in this country a union between a man and a woman. They fed proved it when the mormons practiced having more than one wife the government made it legal to have only one wife.... I bet they would be turning over in the grave to think a few perverts are trying to redefing it as a same sex thing. And yes, it is perverting the term "marriage" to apply it to something like gay partnerships.
2007-09-30 19:07:25 · answer #1 · answered by Born in the USA 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton, in 1996, signed a law defining marriage between a man and a woman..
Some argue this makes no difference because states can make their own laws, etc... but it does make a difference. It makes a difference towards things that only apply to federal rights.
Here is an example, say you married someone from x foreign country and wanted them to migrate here with you. You can do this and your spouse become a citizen. BUT because of Clinton's law, that would not apply if your spouse was the same sex.
2007-10-04 17:27:46 · answer #2 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is because the concept of marriage has changed since the laws came into effect. It was not too long ago that common-law marriages had no legal status. The system is better now, and more fair.
The original definition of marriage did not take into account that marriage is a RELIGIOUS concept for those (including myself) who consider that to be important, and a CIVIL concept for the purpose of administration of family property law.
We all want to prevent unfairness to people, I think. That is why the government had to move on this issue.
2007-09-30 19:04:35 · answer #3 · answered by Pagan Dan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It shouldn't. It is not an interstate issue. The federal role is limited to determining whether or not states have to honor each other's marriages.
The problem is that people on either side of the spectrum find it easier to lobby one Congress rather than 50 legislatures.
2007-09-30 20:14:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh, of direction no longer, that's charm to custom and that is totally improper exceedingly for that reason. Marriage for the era of historic previous has maximum ordinarily been between a guy and as many women human beings as he ought to have the money for to maintain.
2016-10-20 10:55:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People these days only want to take the easy way out so why should it be changed at all.
People jump into marriage and then they blame the system because they didn't both didn't bother to try.
If people don't like the system don't get married.
2007-09-30 19:02:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not to change the definition, it is to maintain the definition, and it is so rogue judges do not grant someting in one state which must be accepted in other states.
Pagan...your ignorance proceeds you. Common law has recently been eliminated in most areas not added. It has been around for many years.
2007-09-30 19:00:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it affects interstate commerce - and that lies within the dominion of the Federal government.
I'm of the mindset that government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage at all - vis-a-vis giving benefits to one group (married) and not to others (unmarried) and vice-versa.
2007-09-30 18:59:57 · answer #8 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It really shouldn't as it is clearly a state matter but he gay activists want to change it it one fell swoop as it is cheaper then fighting in each state.
2007-09-30 20:02:41 · answer #9 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋