Another Look at the Federal Marriage Amendment
While I am emphatically against same-sex marriage, I have some concerns about proposals to amend the Constitution to ban it. Yet I am also concerned about the courts forcing state governments to allow what the they and their constituents do not wish to allow.
If the people of a state wish to tolerate same sex marriage or polygamy, it is the business of that state and that state would have bear the consequences of that decision. On the whole I agree with this American Spectator article on the question as well as this posting that it links to which offers this alternative amendment.
(1) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require the federal government, or any state or territory, to define marriage as anything except the union of one man and one woman.[7]
(2) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of another state or territory.
But I wonder if additional things are not needed.
The Constitution, in my opinion, needs to be amended to define and protect the family as follows.
1: Explicitly recognizing the right of the states to refuse to allow or recognize non-heterosexual, non-monogamous marriages, as well as limitations by blood-relationship and age, but not by race, religion, social or economic class.
2: Assuring that all marriages will be by mutual consent. NO ONE, not even family, has the right to force someone to marry against their will.
3: Explicitly stating that parents are primary care-givers of children and have primary responsibility for them. They would also need to be assured the right to raise their children according to their beliefs, traditions and values and would have the right to reasonably discipline their children as needed, though abuse, neglect or teaching them to disobey the law would not be allowed.
4: Allowing parents to request a jury trial if they are going to permanently lose their children.
There would need to be tweaking on these but I believe they are all needed.
If the people of a state wish to tolerate same sex marriage or polygamy, it is the business of that state and that state would have bear the consequences of that decision. On the whole I agree with this American Spectator article on the question as well as this posting that it links to which offers this alternative amendment.
(1) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require the federal government, or any state or territory, to define marriage as anything except the union of one man and one woman.[7]
(2) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of another state or territory.
But I wonder if additional things are not needed.
The Constitution, in my opinion, needs to be amended to define and protect the family as follows.
1: Explicitly recognizing the right of the states to refuse to allow or recognize non-heterosexual, non-monogamous marriages, as well as limitations by blood-relationship and age, but not by race, religion, social or economic class.
2: Assuring that all marriages will be by mutual consent. NO ONE, not even family, has the right to force someone to marry against their will.
3: Explicitly stating that parents are primary care-givers of children and have primary responsibility for them. They would also need to be assured the right to raise their children according to their beliefs, traditions and values and would have the right to reasonably discipline their children as needed, though abuse, neglect or teaching them to disobey the law would not be allowed.
4: Allowing parents to request a jury trial if they are going to permanently lose their children.
There would need to be tweaking on these but I believe they are all needed.
posted by shoprat at 7:58 AM
12 Comments:
I think you make some great points in there Mr. Shoprat.
While I'm also not sure that an Amendment is needed on the marriage issue, I do agree with "W" that it's the most democratic way of letting the people decide.
I am not in favor of gay marriage and certainly not in favor of polygamy. That being said, I feel that gays should have the full rights of marriage if they wish to register their "social unit" as a family. By that I mean hospital visitation, inheritance, adoption, etc. For religious reasons, I don't like the idea of gay marriage, but have no problem with them being married in all but name.
Polygamy- I have my hands full with one wife and two kids. Could you imagine 3 wives and 25 kids? My God, what are they thinking?
Maybe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
Just let it be a church thing, where it originated.
Are you going to be able to make the Midwest Blogmeet in July?
Details are at my site.
UAW's got a good point, I also don't think the gov should be in the marriage business, but maybe use your points as a min. requirement.
A marriage is a legal contract. The gvt is involved. From that point we have to accept equal protection under the law. In that light, they have the right to get married and have same benefits. From a religous point, we have no right to speak for God. He has the power to do as he sees fit, and accept or deny any union. Just because you are a man, and your mate is a woman, doesn't make it right with God. I believe Jesus admonished the apostles that they didn't know the mind of God.
Tom, The aspostles also wrote the scriptures, claiming them to be the words of God and Christ. Those say that sex, and marriage is between men and women.
I believe that scripture was written many years after the death of the apostles. Also one must remember that not everyone is a Christian. That is why we have seperation of church and state. As for Rats opinion, Don't let yourself get hung up on a word. The word can mean a different thing to us and god. One last point. Jesus wouldn't alow the stoning of the whore on the grounds that no one was any better.
OOPS! I meant Tim's position, not Rats.
As far as when the New Testament was written, I am utter convinced that they were written by the claimed authors.
This site is far from conclusive but it is a good starting point to study the actualy dates of the New Testament Scriptures
http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm
also www.carm.org is a useful site in many ways for believers.
Tom c-
I hate to agree with Rush but "words mean things". I say that they should have the same rights, just don't call it "Marriage".
ray ban sunglasses
skechers shoes
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglasses outlet
gucci sito ufficiale
cheap ray ban sunglasses
ralph lauren outlet
ugg outlet
nike shoes
nike outlet
Post a Comment
<< Home