|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jan 17, 2004 23:03:59 GMT -5
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 16, 2004 4:57:46 GMT -5
The way it should work is that a marriage contract should be drawn up by an attorney and signed by all the participants, and then the state enforces that contract and all its provisions. If people want a ceremony where they vow to uphold that contract--but in a sappy, sentimental way--so be it. And if they feel, as I do, that it is a covenant between them, their spouse, and God, they can make those vows in a church in front of God. Exactly! If anyone wants to be married in front of their friends, family or God, fine. Good for you. But that is what I call a religious ceremony and should not justify federal protection for your relationship. I believe that all couples, gay or straight should have civil unions to receieve federal protection under the law. Then we will have equal rights. The civil rights movement taught us that separate but equal is anything but equal! |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 16, 2004 6:19:19 GMT -5
Exactly! If anyone wants to be married in front of their friends, family or God, fine. Good for you. But that is what I call a religious ceremony and should not justify federal protection for your relationship. I believe that all couples, gay or straight should have civil unions to receieve federal protection under the law. Then we will have equal rights. The civil rights movement taught us that separate but equal is anything but equal! Exactly. The government has neither the right nor the duty to define and uphold the sanctity of marriage. It's just quite simply none of their business. Their only responsability is to enforce whatever contract we present them. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 16, 2004 8:13:58 GMT -5
Here is the body of a letter I e-mailed to Sens. Bond and Talent:
Dear Senator Bond:
I must express my disgust with the current actions of Congress attempting to amend our Constitution to enable discrimination. This is the downfall of the great nation of the United States of America. The proposed amendment has no place in our Constitution for it takes away thst which is granted us by our Creator. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Congress has no business defining a religious institution. Period. My religion does not discriminate against anyone, even homosexuals. Therefore, the proposed amendment would violate the freedom of religion of millions of Americans who do not believe the same things that Fundamentalist Christians believe.
This is a bad amendment and a horrible abuse of the power given you by us. If you support this amendment, I will do whatever is in my power to ensure that you are never elected to a position of power ever again. You can do the right thing by opposing this amendment or you can help destroy that which has made Amercia the greatest country in world history. The decision is yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 16, 2004 8:14:44 GMT -5
BTW, I just voted for the "you go to hell" option out of a sense of fair and balanced commentary. Nothing personal
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 16, 2004 23:46:50 GMT -5
Here is the body of a letter I e-mailed to Sens. Bond and Talent: Dear Senator Bond: I must express my disgust with the current actions of Congress attempting to amend our Constitution to enable discrimination. This is the downfall of the great nation of the United States of America. The proposed amendment has no place in our Constitution for it takes away thst which is granted us by our Creator. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress has no business defining a religious institution. Period. My religion does not discriminate against anyone, even homosexuals. Therefore, the proposed amendment would violate the freedom of religion of millions of Americans who do not believe the same things that Fundamentalist Christians believe. This is a bad amendment and a horrible abuse of the power given you by us. If you support this amendment, I will do whatever is in my power to ensure that you are never elected to a position of power ever again. You can do the right thing by opposing this amendment or you can help destroy that which has made Amercia the greatest country in world history. The decision is yours. Did you do this because of my essay? Either way, kudos! You are a freedomphile of the first order. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 16, 2004 23:47:37 GMT -5
BTW, I just voted for the "you go to hell" option out of a sense of fair and balanced commentary. Nothing personal Why not argue for socialism, then? ;D - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 17, 2004 7:47:03 GMT -5
Why not argue for socialism, then? ;D - Rick Because socialism is stupid ;D Seriously, though, I wrote the letter in part due to your freedomphile. In part, due to the fear campaign the religious right wing is using to try to push this thing through and in part because it's just the right thing to do and the tasty way to do it. My concern is that, in the absence of a campaign donation, my letter will somehow find it's way to a trash bin before any Senator sees it. Religious views aside, it's just a bad idea to allow Congress to define words. This amendment wouldn't even specifically ban homosexual marriage, it would redefine the word marriage. So what happens if this does get passed. Can the government now force dictionary publishers to redefine the word? Bad things are afoot. I can only hope that enough other rational, sane Americans oppose this to shut it down. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 17, 2004 8:25:26 GMT -5
Because socialism is stupid ;DI can only hope that enough other rational, sane Americans oppose this to shut it down. We can only hope. |
|
