The Proposed Federal Marriage Amendment Would Be Grossly Unfair.
Equal rights must include gays and lesbians.
Equal Rights - “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” -The Federal Marriage Amendment, 2006 version.
Until the Defense Of Marriage Act, the Federal government had never defined who is eligible for legal marriage. Marriage had always been a state’s rights issue. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would take the right to define marriage away from the states and give it solely to the federal government. That is not a wise move.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, if ratified, lays the groundwork for rescinding legal contracts between same-sex couples, including domestic partnership status for workplace benefits, hospital visitation and medical decision making and Civil Unions. Equal rights for gays and lesbians, not special rights, are a matter of basic fairness.
Notice the precise wording of the amendment, that the legal incidents of state constitutions could not “be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
The Federal Marriage Amendment is a direct attack on every legal right now granted to gay partnerships by state law. If they exclude gays and lesbians, then they are not equal rights.
Happy gay couples.
Point. “The legalization of same-sex marriages (or ‘civil unions’ or ‘domestic partnerships’) would severely damage the public institution of marriage. It would send a false message that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, that same-sex relations and marriage contribute equally to individual and social stability and happiness. It would connote that all sexual relationships deserve the same legal treatment as marriages.”
- Lynn D. Wardle, Law Professor, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, as printed in the Salt Lake Tribune, August 10, 2003.
Counterpoint. “How is the recognition that another person is in a caring, loving, committed relationship with a lifetime partner — how does that in any way diminish or undermine or threaten the marriage that another person is in?”
- David Cicilline, Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, as quoted in the Providence Journal, August 10, 2003.
Gay Pride Banner
Point. “I am dedicating my talents, time and energies over the next few years to the passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which will protect the traditional family from its enemies who wish to legalize same-sex marriage and other diverse ‘family’ forms.
“It is imperative that we remove the sacred biblical definition of marriage from the reach of un-elected and valueless federal judges who would seek to protect newly fashionable sexual trends by recklessly affording them legal protections.
“We must not allow our children and children’s children to grow up in a nation with legalized polygamy, common-law marriage, and same-sex marriage. The only way to put the traditional and biblical family form of one man married to one woman safely out of the reach of future courts and legislatures is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
- the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Founder of the Moral Majority, would deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.
Point. “Catholic politicians have a moral duty to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.”
- Pope John Paul II, July 2003, would deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.
Counterpoint. “I see the policy of opposing same-sex marriages or unions, whatever you call it, as bigotry or discrimination. We are talking about the law here, and whether the law is going to treat people equally. I don’t see where the church, or anyone else, dictates what the policy is going to be with respect to treating people equally. … The very foundation of the church is about love. This notion of discrimination is so far afield of what Jesus’ life is all about.”
- Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, as quoted in the Providence Journal, August 6, 2003, defends equal rights for gays and lesbians.
If We Go Strictly By The Bible
into 90 languages
We are saved:
by grace alone through faith alone
Jan 19, 21 03:07 PM
Arsenokoites is rarely, if ever, used in antiquity, to describe homosexuality. The Greek language had other words for that.
Jan 08, 21 07:15 PM
Gay Christian 101 - Presenting accurate biblical and historical info defending LGBT Christians from those who rip verses out of context to condemn.
Dec 21, 20 02:03 PM
Romans 1, in historical context, is about ancient Roman fertility goddess worshipers who engaged in shrine prostitution to worship Cybele, not gays and lesbians.