Presidential Vote

[Guest LadyC]

here's why a federal ammendment would not open the door for the federal government to impose it's will on states in other issues. the protection against that happening is built in to the system. the federal government can not ammend the constitution without a majority approval among the states. i think it's 38 states, (legislative branches), which must vote in favor for an ammendment to be passed. historically, it has been extremely difficult to pass one.

but it is based on what? the will of the people! which is what state laws are supposed to be based on. just as the state supreme courts must intervene in local politics if a district attorney or a mayor don't uphold the law (as happened in california a few months back), if the states are not upholding the constitution and allowing activist judges to write laws from the bench, such as gay marriage (and may i remind you, this law passed in an election year!), then the federal government MUST step in and enforce the constitution, even if it means ammending it so that there are no loopholes to be found.

sorry for the run on sentence.

your welcome for my keeping my cool. i don't always do so well on that! but i sense that you're not really just being pig-headed about this thing, you're just trying to figure out how to do the right thing and satisfy your political conscience at the same time... so there's plenty of room for persuasion LOL, and getting angry is not very persuasive!

[Guest LadyC]

i edited my last post to add a paraagraph, so you may want to go back and read it. i was hoping to edit it before you got here to read it but i was too late.

[WatchingForJesus]

LadyC,

You've got to be quick. LOL!!!

Point well taken from your previous post! However, based on that... like you said, getting a federal marriage ammendment passed that would actually allow the federal goverment to tell the states what to do would never happen. If it would never happen, is that because it goes against the "will of the people"?

IMO, pushing for the current federal marriage ammendment is a waste of time for Christians, because it won't create the outcome that they desire. Standing behind the federal marriage ammendment to "show" that you are on the side of the Christians is also pointless, UNLESS ONE THINKS THAT MOST CHRISTIANS DON'T TRULY UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE AMMENDMENT!

Does that make sense to you?

Again I say, that the only way that we, as Christians, are going to be able to obtain our desired result is to take it up with the individual states, since getting a federal marriage ammendment that actually "works" to sanctify marriage between one man and one woman is impossible.

Can we agree on that?

Remember, we got off on this tangent because I don't think that it means a hill of beans that George W. Bush supports the federal marriage ammendment.

YBIC,

Bradley

[Guest LadyC]

bush does support the ammendment as it stands, and so do i. what is it that christians really want? ok, wrong question. despite what we want, what is it that is of primary importance to us?

for me, what is of primary importance is retaining the Biblical definition of the word marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. if the states want to pass a law that allows unholy unions between two men or two women, and call it something OTHER than marriage, then that, dear watching, is an entirely different issue, and we should fight it on separate ground. once the definition of the term marriage has been legally changed, we are SOL (please forgive my allusion to profanity!)

a federal ammendment to protect the biblical definition of marriage is very possible. very difficult, yes, but very possible. i think it is of critical importance that we support it, even as written... because to change the proposal to include civil unions in the federal ban would almost guarantee its failure. that's kinda like throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't it?

the states are not upholding the constitution. we must stand up and demand that they do. since they're obviously not listening, we must fight this on the only ground left... the federal ground. we can fight the civil union issue on a state by state basis.

doesn't that make sense?

[Guest shadow2b]

- As to the gay issue i believe that while homosexuality is wrong we are only dividing ourselves as a country by not allowing them equal rights. I agree that homosexuality is totally unscriptual but remember......UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL.

-Ist.Cor.10.vs.21-----

-Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

-What "RIGHTS"do gays NOT have that they WANT??

-Gays want to have the "LEGAL RIGHT"to have sex with six year old children--

-{to that end "They"are diligently working toward--quietly behind the scenes}

-AS to which former Attorney general{URPPPP--GAGG--PUKE]-janet reno sent one

-of her staff lawyers to the Supreme Court to present the petition for lowering the

-age of consent to 12 year olds...The arguement in favor of this "legislation"was

-condoned & endorsed with appropriate psychological references & studies by

-"some" -psychologists {in dire need of psychological treatment-themselves-

-electric-shock-therapy-----"I hope"}

-With "this"information in mind---Would YOU STILL like to JOIN-yourself TO & with

-worshippers of belial so that YOU would NOT feel like YOU were Dividing "the

-country"???

[Guest Gypsy]

Pray to Jesus, don't elect him. Besides, he wouldn't take the job even if he won. But you can vote for someone who is more christian friendly and someone who understands that the courts are out of control. You decide who you think best fits that criteria.

Gypsy

[irishcowboy]

I am not happy with the direction people are going, but I will not follow along....

when homosexuals were allowed in the military ( while under clintons rule ) i decided at that time i would bail out as soon as I could, that was the deciding factor.......

here is a reply I received from one of our representitives.............exact quote

Dear Mr. ONeill:

Thank you for contacting me about amending the Constitution to define

marriage. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

Recent court rulings have brought the definition of marriage to the

forefront. From the federal perspective, this issue was addressed several

years ago when Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law

104-99) in 1996. The Act defines marriage as the legal union between one

man and one woman as husband and wife and a spouse as a person of the

opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Kansas, along with 37 other

states, adheres to a longstanding policy that does not recognize same sex

marriages.

At the federal level, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced S.J. Res.

26, a proposal to amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union

of a man and a woman. This measure has been referred to the Senate

Judiciary Committee where it awaits further action. A companion bill, H.J.

Res 56, was introduced by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) in the

House last May.

Further, President Bush recently endorsed a federal marriage amendment in

an effort to preserve a timeless institution that is a cornerstone of our

society. I agree with President Bush that it is wrong for a select

minority to impose their definition of marriage on the nation. Ultimately

the Constitution will be changed either through a piecemeal approach in

the courts or through the more democratic process of amending the

Constitution. In this case, an amendment may be the necessary alternative.

Again, thank you for contacting me to share your views. Your opinion

matters.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,

Pat Roberts

PR:vr

[Guest LadyC]

Ultimately

the Constitution will be changed either through a piecemeal approach in

the courts or through the more democratic process of amending the

Constitution. In this case, an amendment may be the necessary alternative.

watchingforjesus, pat roberts just summed up everything i've been trying to say, and did it much more efficiently than i did. so that's the crux of the issue... will we support a federal ammendment? or will we sit on our hands and let activist judges change it for us?

thanks mr&mrs for posting that letter!

[WatchingForJesus]

Ultimately

the Constitution will be changed either through a piecemeal approach in

the courts or through the more democratic process of amending the

Constitution. In this case, an amendment may be the necessary alternative.

watchingforjesus, pat roberts just summed up everything i've been trying to say, and did it much more efficiently than i did. so that's the crux of the issue... will we support a federal ammendment? or will we sit on our hands and let activist judges change it for us?

thanks mr&mrs for posting that letter!

LadyC,

This has been my point all along... and I am glad that Mike posted this letter too! According to this paragraph...

From the federal perspective, this issue was addressed several

years ago when Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law

104-99) in 1996. The Act defines marriage as the legal union between one

man and one woman as husband and wife and a spouse as a person of the

opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Kansas, along with 37 other

states, adheres to a longstanding policy that does not recognize same sex

marriages.

The Defense of Marriage Act already defines marriage "how we would like it to be defined". I don't understand why we would need anything more than this. OK, so you say we need a constitutional ammendment that will allow the federal government to enforce the definition of marriage on the states. If we could actually get a federal marraige ammendment that would do just that, and only that, than I would be in favor of that. (And yes, dear LadyC, you helped change my mind that an ammendment to the constitution would be OK - as long as it was the will of the majority of the people)

However, as the current amendment stands it isn't going to preserve the sanctity of marriage one iota. I have already established that, right?

So this statement...

Further, President Bush recently endorsed a federal marriage amendment in an effort to preserve a timeless institution that is a cornerstone of our

society.

is pure poppy cock. The "current" federal marriage amendment will actually "concrete" the decision of "civil unions" as being up to the states. So, this really does nothing to preserve a timeless institution.

a federal ammendment to protect the biblical definition of marriage is very possible. very difficult, yes, but very possible. i think it is of critical importance that we support it, even as written... because to change the proposal to include civil unions in the federal ban would almost guarantee its failure. that's kinda like throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't it?

the states are not upholding the constitution. we must stand up and demand that they do. since they're obviously not listening, we must fight this on the only ground left... the federal ground. we can fight the civil union issue on a state by state basis.

LadyC, stay with me on this... If this current federal marriage amendment passes, there will be NO fighting the states about civil unions, because they will be protected by this amendment to decided on civil unions as they see fit.

So, if this passes, then the states can decide (as they are already starting to do anyway) through the judicial system instead of the legislative system (where a majority vote would be used). And, it would be "protected" for them to be able to do that, through this amendment.

What really gets me going is the individuals, who know better, like President Bush and dare I say Pat Robertson (I'm assuming a person in his position would know the facts about this amendment) who are pushing for this amendment making it look like they are pro sanctity of marriage, when in fact they are promoting a poison pill and saying that it's all going to be OK if this passes. And, I hate to go one step further, and add, that possibly... Christians are being intentionally duped here!

Does any of this make sense to you?

Regardless, though about any of this... God is still in charge and somehow, this is all a part of his plan. Maybe we don't understand how God thinks, but everything happens for a reason, for HIS GLORY! Someday, when we are in heaven, we will all look back on this and say, OH... that's why He did that, or allowed that!

YBIC,

Bradley

[Guest LadyC]

does what you're saying make sense? call me dense, but no!

the DOM act is being totally disregarded by the state judiciaries because it's not part of the constitution. if the federal government would ENFORCE the DOM, i'd be quite content.

the civil unions would not be concreted because of the ammendment. it would be left up to the legislative branches. if they want to allow gay couples to have legal benefits such as visiting in the ICU or whatever without having to draw up a hundred legal documents at their expense to allow them all the various rights they want, i have no problem with that.

now let me clarify WHY i have no problem with that. they're still people. they should not be allowed to "marry", but they shouldn't have to pay a fortune to an attorney to make sure all the things other people get automatically in a marriage decree (hospital visitation, estate rights, next of kin rights, pension benefits, etc.) go to the person of their choice. with me so far? i'm not condoning homosexual unions, i'm defending the right of ANY person in a relationship to have one legal document cover all those little extras if they so choose.

i really don't see how this is a poison pill. it's simply a first step. i do not deny that the judicial branch would overstep its bounds regarding civil unions, and nullify the legislative branch and the will of the people. but if the citizens of any state wanted the federal government was needed to enforce that issue at a later date, that would be a second step.

there's too much red tape and too many hoops to be able to combine two steps into one, unfortunately.

unless.... if there was a federal ammendment that simply stated that any judiciary that ruled in favor of any issue against the will of the people would be removed from office and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years, and that any part of a law which needed clarification must be put on a ballot so that the people's will could be determined, now THAT would kill all the birds with one stone!

in any case, i'm glad my reasoning helped change your mind