Same Sex Vote Upon Us

[Big Mouth Nana]

Hello All:
I am watching Christian television right now, and the subject is the new law going before the Senate on same sex marriages. They started having meetings on this last Friday, and will be meeting in the weeks ahead. They said that there are 36 Senators that are voting yes for this law. They are begging Christians to contact their Senators offices, and let them know how they feel about it.
I would like to get your opinion on if you think that this law will pass, and we are in deeper trouble as a nation, or do you think that it will fail? Have we as a nation gone to far, allowing these kind of perverted laws to come into existance, and as a church, sat on our hineys to long to rise up? My personal feeling is, that it will pass, and I pray to God that I am wrong. Blessings To You.

 

[Arikay]

Yes your right, it is very perverted for people who are obviously of lower class to want to be equal.

I don't think it will pass, but it would be nice if it did.

 

[Spike~]

I've never met a Taoist opposed to equality for gays...

I don't think it will pass, and I hope I'm right.

 

[seebs]

I don't know what the law says.

I want the government as far away as possible from involvement with church concepts of marriage, because if they start thinking that church marriages and state marriages are related, they may start trying to tell churches what to do. I would rather they allow things that my church doesn't, and leave us alone, than that they follow my church's rules today, and try to tell us what to do tomorrow.

 

[Arikay]

I'm not. (or was that the point? )

I'm not sure what law is being talked about, but I assumed it was for gays (not opposed) because of how the OP treated it.

I've never met a Taoist opposed to equality for gays...

I don't think it will pass, and I hope I'm right.

 

[Caylin]

I just thought they meant the FMA, and so I hope it doesn't pass.

 

[joebudda]

I don’t know what law we are discussing here. The OP seems to have made this extremely vague. If this is about the FMA as “Dracon” states then no way do I wish this to pass. It would be legalizing discrimination.

 

[Arikay]

If so, just ignore my first post. or well, half of it.

I just thought they meant the FMA, and so I hope it doesn't pass.

 

[seebs]

Until I know for sure which law is under discussion, it's hard to say.

I am vehemently opposed to "defining" marriage at the constitutional level. It is at best political grandstanding, and at worst, an act of genuine malice and evil. Probably both, really.

 

[Caylin]

I don’t know what law we are discussing here. The OP seems to have made this extremely vague. If this is about the FMA as “Dracon” states then no way do I wish this to pass. It would be legalizing discrimination.

Ummmmm why do I get the special treatment and get quotation marks around my name?

 

[joebudda]

Ummmmm why do I get the special treatment and get quotation marks around my name?

Because you are special.

 

[Caylin]

Sweet! Really? *Dances around the room doing my special dance."

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

Church Groups Weigh-In as Vote on Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Nears

(Capitol Hill-AP) -- With a vote approaching in the Senate on a Constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to those of opposite sex, representatives of some religious groups will be on Capitol Hill to show their support.

Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the amendment, says it represents the view of many black and Latino church leaders and U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops that an amendment is needed to legally protect what he called the majority "common sense" view that marriage be defined as solely between a man and a woman.

President Bush argues that if courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage, a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the "meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

Others, including some within organized religion, argue that marriage needs no such protection and that the furor over gay marriage is part of a larger stance against equality for gays and lesbians.

Some denominations are split over the issue.

Gee, I thought everyone knew about this...sorry. If the courts create their own definition of marriage, then that could be anything. Look at the liberal judges who have already condoned marriage between same sex partners.

 

[joebudda]

Church Groups Weigh-In as Vote on Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Nears

(Capitol Hill-AP) -- With a vote approaching in the Senate on a Constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to those of opposite sex, representatives of some religious groups will be on Capitol Hill to show their support.

Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the amendment, says it represents the view of many black and Latino church leaders and U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops that an amendment is needed to legally protect what he called the majority "common sense" view that marriage be defined as solely between a man and a woman.

President Bush argues that if courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage, a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the "meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

Others, including some within organized religion, argue that marriage needs no such protection and that the furor over gay marriage is part of a larger stance against equality for gays and lesbians.

Some denominations are split over the issue.

Gee, I thought everyone knew about this...sorry. If the courts create their own definition of marriage, then that could be anything. Look at the liberal judges who have already condoned marriage between same sex partners.

Then I am very against this act. All we are doing it legalizing discrimination. Propagating hate and prejudges.

 

[Spike~]

Ammending a document that was designed to protect and ensure rights to now deny rights and discriminate against a minority is pure hypocracy and stupidity at it's finest.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It needs a 2/3 vote to pass and probably won't get it.

 

[seebs]

Gee, I thought everyone knew about this...sorry. If the courts create their own definition of marriage, then that could be anything. Look at the liberal judges who have already condoned marriage between same sex partners.

And having the Senate create their own definition of marriage is any better? I hardly think so.

Every experiment thus far with legislation about marriage has been a bad one.

The correct thing is to separate legal marriage from church marriage.

 

[Arikay]

In an attempt not to get mixed up again.

I don't think it will pass (a good thing), but it will be interesting to see how many are for it and how many against.
IMHO it is more of a voting ploy than an attempt to actually get the constitution changed.

If who votes for which side is made public (I believe it is) then it could also be used against those that voted against it. Since although it needs a 2/3rds vote to pass, the number needed to be elected is much less and so it could be used to try and push people from office.
(I think, at least. )

 

[Ampoliros]

I highly doubt it'll pass, which is a good thing - allowing discrimination by slipping it into the Constitution would be a terrible thing for the country to do.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

I don't think it will pass
_____________________
Donate to the Catholics Quest for the HOLY GRAIL. To donate give blessings to Miss Shelby or bless me and Ill bless Miss Shelby . A donation of any size would be great!
Thank You So Much for giving!!!