Your Views on Marriage Ammendment Proposals?

There are currently bills under consideration at both the state (PA) and federal levels:

PA House Bill 2831, which is been going through the PA House this year.

A federal effort of similar intent just survived the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today, in a party line vote.

I oppose the government having a role in dictating what is a marriage

I guess it should be read as "I support/oppose an ammendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman." I probably oversimplified the wording, but that's what I was getting at.

A lot of people are against a marriage ammendment. Not all of them are necessarily in favor of gay marriage; some just don't want the government meddling in it. That would put them under the second uption, right?

a thought: if two individuals are committed to each other, no matter what the sexual orientation, who are any of us, let alone government to judge?

people should have a right to love each other and express their committment....

that would be one way of doing it yes.

Marriage isn't a political tool, IMO. It's a religious thing, and let those in their religions have whatever marriage they want. And no, marrying a cow, unless simply ceremonial, or marrying a 14yr old is not correct as they don't have enough development to make decisions such as that.

Just hand out civil unions to any two people. Leave the churches to give religious marriages to whoever they want in their churches. There, solved for all.

The bush amendment was a constitutional enshrining of a Bill Clinton act.

Bill Clinton- Democratic, caring, socially liberal wonderboy.

The reason for the constitutional enshrining?

Because the Mayor of San Francisco flagrantly, knowingly, and deliberately violated his own state's law, based on a democratically passed referendum, upheld by the California judiciary, defining "marriage" as between man and a woman.

This referrendum included wide and expansive guidelines for legally equivalent same sex "civil unions". The mayor did this "act of defiance" to create a public outrage; to deliberately enact theater, and force it to be a national campaign issue.

Bush pushed forward ideas of converting the existing Clintonian law to a constitutional amendment because a mayor wilfully violated the law of his own state banning same-sex marriage, even though there were legally effective alternatives.

So, why the fuss now? Why can't Bush just ignore it?

Not affecting this amendment will lead to such nastiness as suing a catholic, jewish, or muslim church into the ground for failing to "marry" a same sex couple, just like you could sue them (in civil court) for failing to admit you if you're black.

It would be ironic if on one day an organization lobbied for homosexual rights in terms of renouncing a marriage amendment, and then on another day sued a church for failing to follow the laws that they suggest. This type of suit would be inevitable. What measures would prevent this violation of our rights to religious freedom? More laws?

So, there is a stealth solution; one that confers the rights of man-woman marriages on same-sex partners and is entirely compatible with conservative values.

It's built into the Bush amendment: States could, under the Bush amendment, choose to grant their own citizens civil unions, while the legal label of "marriage" is reserved for same sex couples. The amendment does not prevent civil unions (and all of the rights they convey upon the couple as is within the power of the government to grant), it says that the word "marriage" in terms of legality is between a man and a woman. (I an interested in hearing only well-reasoned opposition to this interpretation of the FMA.)

The demonstratable nature of such things is that laws like state-sponsored civil unions will inevitably spread and become the norm, c.f. ending of slavery, emergence of civil rights.

The ideals we're trying to foster by recognizing marriages are that of families and how they improve our nation. Having people support each other is the real goal, so that's what all of us should focus on, not enforcing what the word "marriage" means. If the law gives states the power to build healthy families, whether heterosexual or homosexual, then I'm for it, especially if it perpetuates my right to practice my religion as I believe it.

Frank-
"Marriage isn't a political tool, IMO. It's a religious thing"...

I agree with you conceptually, informally, not really sure of the word I want, but the fact of the matter remains that a man and woman can LEGALLY get married by a Justice of the Peace and have a much greater collection of rights than a gay couple can obtain under a civil union. I'm straight but not religious so it shouldn't matter to me, BUT...

If you want to call these "nonreligious marriages" "civil unions" and equalize the rights, I wouldn't quibble over the language. And I'm not looking to dictate what a church can consider their "Sacrament of Marraige", but I have a HUGE problem in term of denying legal rights to gays that we extend to straights.

My very humble opinion...

the poll isn't just in reference to a federal ammendment. Even if it were, DoMA doesn't exactly tread the clearest constitutional path, so using the Clinton law as a basis for FMA isn't really the best argument, is it?

That'll teach me to read the comments more closely, eh?