Federal marriage amendment

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by fromtheright, Jul 12, 2003.

  1. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    A perfect example of my complaint with the three page limit, this was the subject of a recent thread that was closed:

    Previous thread

    Now my point: I don't think the proposed amendment goes far enough. As I said it another post, its defenders argue that it is designed to prevent creation of homosexual marriage by the courts, and would not prevent state legislatures from doing so. I don't think that it goes far enough and would ultimately be symbolic and ineffective.
     
  2. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homosexual Marriage, the Bible and You

    In I Corinthians chapter 7, the Apostle Paul set forth a strategy for effective marriage.
    "...let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband," he wrote in verse 2.

    It is important to note that the great apostle did not outline a paradigm for relationships between two men or two women.

    Throughout his writings, Paul defined methods of ensuring successful relationships between husbands and wives. It was a very important part of his God-breathed epistles to the early church.

    Today these writings are viewed as archaic and outmoded by homosexuals who are currently pressing to have their relationships officially sanctioned by the government.

    While leftists will not acknowledge it, present American law fundamentally reflects biblical tenets, including the Ten Commandments. In order to alter these time-honored laws that sanction the Judeo-Christian vision of marriage, constitutional revisionists are on a quest to secularize America and subsequently destroy the values that characterized the nation for most
    of its glorious history.

    I Corinthians is therefore meaningless in the secular society that allows citizens to do what is right in their own eyes. There can be no definition of appropriate sexual behavior in this scenario because our laws will essentially become situational, lasting only until the next shift in public morals. Under this legal ruse, marriage must be altered to permit homosexuals to marry.

    And this is an unstoppable train. If the sacred bonds of marriage are destroyed, who knows what the future holds. Will men legally marry young
    boys and girls? Will men legally take on multiple wives and husbands? These are not outrageous questions.

    The recent Texas sodomy case brought new light to this escalating issue.

    As Gary Bauer noted, conservatives are concerned about "un-elected judges taking over the authority that elected officials are supposed to exercise."

    Thankfully, there is good news on the horizon.

    The Federal Marriage Amendment

    An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being proposed to protect the sanctity of marriage, securing it as a legal declaration solely between a man and a woman and protecting it from scheming jurists.

    Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) offered the Federal Marriage Amendment on May 21, and it advanced to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

    The amendment reads:

    "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor
    state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

    It must be passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to be added to the Constitution. The amendment now has 27 co-sponsors in the House and, while there is no Senate bill yet, Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has addressed the need for such an amendment. A companion Senate bill is expected to arrive on the
    scene soon.

    This is timely legislation. Presently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is considering whether seven homosexuals couples that sued the state in an effort to gain the right to marry under civil law should be allowed to do so.

    Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Institute, said, "Should the court rule in favor of same-sex marriage, pro-homosexual activists will undoubtedly resort to lawsuits based on the Constitution's 'Full Faith & Credit Clause' to push for marital rights in every other state. That clause requires states to recognize the 'public acts, records, and judicial
    proceedings of every other state.'"

    Take Action . Now!

    Christians nationwide must become proactive in urging their congressional representatives to support Rep. Musgrave's legislation.

    If ever there was a time for Christians to get involved in the political process, it is now. Currently, homosexual-rights organizations are asking supporters to contact their representatives and urge them not to back Mrs.
    Musgrave's legislation.

    We must aggressively combat the homosexual effort to destroy the tradition of marriage. This nation is on the precipice of moral devastation.
    Forty-two million children have been aborted in my lifetime; half of our marriages fail; millions of children are being raised by single parents; and multitudes of American teenagers are sexually active. I don't know if America can survive another dagger in the heart of its moral fabric.

    I urge all readers to contact their representatives to encourage them to support Rep. Musgrave's Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as a sacred trust between one man and one woman.

    Please call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard today (202-224-3121) and request to speak to your representative and two senators. When connected,
    considerately tell their spokesperson that you are urging him/her to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment. (When speaking to your senators, remember that companion legislation to Mrs. Musgrave's House amendment has not yet come forth. You may say that, when the Senate legislation is written, you hope the senator will support it.)

    To E-mail your senators, click on this link to find his/her address:

    LINK FOR SENATORS

    To E-mail your congressman, click on this link to find his/her address:

    LINK FOR CONGRESSMEN

    Please urge your friends, family members and church family to get involved in this urgent effort to protect the sanctity of marriage in our nation!

    LINK

    (I agree FTR, but we have to start someplace)
     
  3. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I agree that it would at least be a finger in the dike to prevent judicial creation of homosexual "marriage" (the concept just makes me sick), if we are going to amend the Constitution, we should do it the right way and prevent state legislatures from doing the same thing, though I would think (for now) that legislatures are far less likely to do this than the courts. Once this amendment is ratified, the homosexual lobby would then just turn their heat on the legislatures. We are truly in bad shape if legislatures try this but it's not unheard of--California's effort to do this by legislation was shut down in 2000 I think it was. The Defense of Marriage Act protects other states from the obvious consequence of such laws.

    In any case, we are truly in a sad state that we would be thinking of having to amend the Constitution to keep homosexuals from being able to marry, whether from the courts or our representatives.

    By the way, FYI, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America both oppose the Federal marriage amendment because of the weakness I mentioned.
     
  4. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If everyone opposed to homosexual marriages contacted their State Rep's, State Senator's and all their reps in Washington we'd be making a bit of noise. I sign the petitions and I write my reps (even tho MY reps are Christians and vote the way I'd like to see them vote.)

    Again, I am not shocked. When you have 'reverends' and 'preachers' and so called christian's turning a blind eye to God's word and doing that which is eveil, the end MUST be near.

    Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!
    Diane
     
  5. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;And this is an unstoppable train. If the sacred bonds of marriage are destroyed, who knows what the future holds.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    To my knowledge, no one is trying to destroy conventional marriage. It is an exaggeration to make such a statement.
     
  6. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Peter, the original poster said sacred bonds and not conventional marriage. Allowing homosexual marriages would degrade Biblical marriage.
     
  7. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peter101,

    If you define "conventional marriage" as a state-sanctioned "bond" (or even "blessing" by some "church") between any two willing people, then by definition, no, of course it doesn't destroy it. But if you believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, and then the state hands out licenses to any two (or more?) willing "partners", then, yes, the sacrament of marriage is destroyed. I also think you are naive if you believe that the homosexual movement is not out to tear down marriage. I am out of town now but will look up some references after I get home on that subject.
     
  8. Reborn James

    Reborn James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they are not getting married in a church, then why?
     
  9. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Due to the variety of readers that frequent the BB, we are asking subjects of a sexual nature to be discussed in password forums for men/women only. Thank you for your understanding.

    SheEagle9/11
    Moderator
     

Share This Page

Loading...