H. J. Res. 22: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to marriage

I can't believe this!

`Section 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.

`Section 2. No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

`Section 3. No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.'.

www.govtrack.us...
www.govtrack.us...

Whats wrong with same sex marriage, who does it hurt? Don't homosexuals deserve the same rights that everybody else has?

What ever happened to this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

[edit on 4/21/2007 by Alien42]

I'm heterosexual myslef, but I still think homosexuals should get the same rights we do. I believe homosexuality is just part of nature...

The question is, how do you define marriage? Man and a woman? Man and human? Man and...anything? Horse? Tree?

Originally posted by Johnmike
The question is, how do you define marriage? Man and a woman? Man and human? Man and...anything? Horse? Tree?

How about:

Marriage is a legal agreement between two or more consenting adults of sound mind.

Just like any legal agreement, the primary necessary ingredient is the will to enter into the contract on the part of all parties, and the mental competence required to enter into the agreement.

So, no, a human and a tree or horse cannot enter into a marriage contract any more than they can enter into any contract. There is no way to be sure that the tree or horse is willing to enter into the contract, or competent to make the decision.

This effort to limit marriage to one man and one woman is driven by religion, pure and simple, and thus has no place in secular law in the United States. If a Church wants to make that restriction, fine, that is the right of that Church. But this is no different than earlier attempts to define marriage as being between a man and woman of the same race. No different.

The government has no place telling people what to do, or who they can
and cannot marry.

Now, I don't think there is anything to worry about right now, if this could
not get passed when there was a majority Conservative-Republican
congress, there's no way it will get passed now when we have a
Democratically controlled congress, of which around 60% are liberal.

[edit on 4/21/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Marriage is a legal agreement between two or more consenting adults of sound mind.

Sounds good. I wouldn't define it federally, though.

It wont pass.

It may pass on the state level (which still baffles me), but it will not pass in that form.

What a world.

The only way such an amendment would get passed is if Federal courts start making States or the Federal government recognize gay marriages performed in other States where it is allowed. Until and unless that happens, it's just not a real issue requiring a Constitutional Amendment.

[edit on 4/21/2007 by djohnsto77]

Welcome... welcome my future fellow Canadians... remember, you're always FREE up here.

This is disgusting. How can the 'stick up the ass' right wing bible thumpers get away with such a change? I seriously hope this never gets passed.

What next? "If you or anyone you know has experienced homosexual urges, report them immediately to the beareau of morality for re-education and disciplinary actions."

Please, someone....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't marriage a "religious" matter? What ever happened to the separation of Church and State? Isn't that one of the grandest ideas that led to America?

I for one, as a straight heterosexual, do not like the idea of gay marriage, therefore, I won't marry a gay.


[edit to add: Which religion provides for homosexual marriage?]

[edit on 4/22/2007 by Infoholic]

Originally posted by Infoholic
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't marriage a "religious" matter? What ever happened to the separation of Church and State? Isn't that one of the grandest ideas that led to America?

Well spirtual marriage is, yes, but civil marriage is not.

Spiritual marriage is being married by a priest/preacher etc.
Civil marriage is being maried by a judge, captain or priest with a license.


[quote
[edit to add: Which religion provides for homosexual marriage?]


Various sects of Christianity and Judaeism do, I'm sure there are others
that do as well.

Originally posted by Infoholic
[edit to add: Which religion provides for homosexual marriage?]

To add to Iori's answer: Most pagan religions allow for homosexual marriage. I have personally attended a homosexual hand fasting a few years ago.

The whole thing was very beautiful.

I appreciate the input to my question, because in my religion (or lack thereof), faith, or whatever you want to call it... "With the powers invested in me by God and the State of *one of 50*, I thee wed"... confuses me. Which is it? Being of your choice or the State? Hence my question.

I was brought up around a Methodist Church, of which I stopped attending at 14 due to my personal belief. Nowhere in the teachings of the Bible during that time did it stray anywhere away from "man and woman" to engage in holy matrimony. And at no time during my upbringing was the thought of homosexual marriage considered.

I've only got any type of religious background (referencing Church) from my preteen years. From there on, it's been my belief that God (the being of my choice) wants me to believe what I want to believe and I shouldn't be forced one way or another. I do believe in Him. But now I'm getting off topic...

Anywho, thanks for the input.

Well morally speaking, since I'm a Christian, I do not think it is right for a man to be with another man, so I wouldn't like seeing them legally married. On the other hand, my best friend is gay, and that his choice and I have no problem with it. I guess I really don't mind seeing homosexuals get married, but I don't believe they should recieve some of the benefits that heterosexuals recieve. All because they are unable to reproduce.

I know I'm going to get crap for this.

Originally posted by Johnmike
The question is, how do you define marriage? Man and a woman? Man and human? Man and...anything? Horse? Tree?

The next big thing after gay marriage will be polygamy..

If 5 people are happy together, who says they can't all be married right?

I am all for gay marriage, I think everyone has that right, but I do think it could snowball into everyone saying their union is also protected.

I'm sorry to say all I have nothing against gay people but there is a problem when it comes to marriage.
Simply put the term of marriage it's self is religios, and it does come from religion, when marriage first came up to be it was a bound made by woman and man that was officialy aproved by the church, and that is how marriage came to be in existance.
So some of you would say why does the church has a word to say on this, I guess because they invented it?

What does marriage mean?
If any of you really think what marriage is and look at what it ment and why it was created then you will see that the gay comunity is not right after all regarding marriage, I'm only refering to marriage not other things.
Marriage in fact has to do with god, it is god's blesing for 2 people to be toghether, it was created this way, that is how it came in existance.

This is the problem I think, thats why it bothers so many people, because some people see it as some perverted thing not because the others are gay but simply put because they took their own ideology and changed it sort of to mock what they stand for as cristians, It's sort of I come in some one's house I take something and I change it.

Why do gay people want to get married any way, since marriage is in contradiction with them, why do they have to take things that are not theirs and change them as they please, since marriage originaly had to do with religion and god.
Why don't they invent something for them selfs like narriage, sarriage, larriage, or gayrriage or something, I'm sure they can find a word for what they want.

It's copy right, If I were an inventor and invented something of course I would place a licence agreement, use it but since I invented it you use it on my own terms, since I'm the inventor and it's my darn invention I got the right to say something don't I ?
This is the problem...really, I do disagree with the curch alot but not in this case, thier right on this one.




[edit on 22-4-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by thexsword
and that's his choice and I have no problem with it.

Sexuality is not a choice, I did not choose to prefer males, nor did you
choose to prefer whichever gender you like.

I guess I really don't mind seeing homosexuals get married, but I don't believe they should receive some of the benefits that heterosexuals receive. All because they are unable to reproduce.

The tangible benefits of marriage are all legal, which benefits exactly
do you not think should be included?

Originally posted by pepsi78
Simply put the term of marriage it's self is religious, and it does come from religion, when marriage first came up to be it was a bound made by woman and man that was officially approved by the church, and that is how marriage came to be in existence.
So some of you would say why does the church has a word to say on this, I guess because they invented it?

You are in error, marriage was not always based on religion everywhere,
for instance in many places marriage had nothing to do with religion, but
was more of a kind of socio-political deal making.

The church has no place interfering in peoples lives.

What does marriage mean?
If any of you really think what marriage is and look at what it meant and why it was created then you will see that the gay community is not right after all regarding marriage, I'm only referring to marriage not other things.
Marriage in fact has to do with god, it is god's blessing for 2 people to be together, it was created this way, that is how it came in existence.

Again you are biasing your thinking by only thinking about the western
European version of marriage, it was not based on religion everywhere.

Marriage, in the common sense is the bond between two people who love
each other, and also a legal agreement on several other things, such as
visitation things, property ownership etc.

but simply put because they took their own ideology and changed it sort of to mock what they stand for as Christians, It's sort of I come in some one's house I take something and I change it.

That is even more erroneous than the previous things said.

Why do gay people want to get married any way, since marriage is in contradiction with them.

Marriage is a legal agreement and a bond based on love, it is not
contradictory in anyway.

Why do they have to take things that are not theirs and change them as they please,

Marriage never belonged to any one group, nor was it ever the same
for all groups either, besides that the same thing could be said about the
English language, or any other cultural amalgamation in existence today.

since marriage originally had to do with religion and god.
Why don't they invent something for them selfs like narriage, sarriage, larriage, or gayrriage or something, I'm sure they can find a word for what they want.

Again, marriage has never been universally about a deity or religion,
it was primarily in Europe where that even applied.

Why should we have to come up with some concept that is the same as
marriage, but just named something else because some people are so
close minded and zealatous that they are offended by something that is
different from there ideologies.

[edit on 4/22/2007 by iori_komei]

Okay you know this ticks me off because it basically also says they can't have a civil union. I mean I can see the logic that a marriage IS defined as a man and a woman, I can understand that, but this basically says that anything "like" marriage, or any alternative can't be done ether.

It angers me very much. If the United States is going to get with the program with the rest of the western world we need to stop being conservative about such things.

[edit on 4/22/2007 by Kacen]

I'm just going to quote you once on everything.
Marriage didint even originate from europe, i don't even know how you could think such things.
Marriage developed in the middle east from the arabs and the jews and it was a religios tradition with religios ceremonys.

First of all the bible is an old book, very old, and I don't want to turn this debate in to a religios one but it states in the bible, in the old testament about marriage when europe didin't even exist as a continent, since the
origin of civilisation originates from the area around mesopotamia, middle east and I'm not talking about preistoric man, I'm talking where man started to become social.

It is belived mesopotamians would gather in front of carved gods made out of stone as their parents would sacrifice animals on an altar and offer
them to the gods before the ceremony would begin so the gods would be
pleased and let the bond be betwen the 2.

Everything even later was under religios conduct, everything was out of religion, in fact the old testament states that it is a religios thing and since
every one was religios at the time I have no doubts, breaking rules at the time would get you stoned till you died, it was all under religios conduct.
Even in china, the 2 would gather and a monk would assist with the bond(marriage).

No matter how you put it u'r not right, and your really off course about europe being the birth of marriage, and for all other thing like ownership, property etc..that came later, it's a recent addition to marriage.
I guess I'm right..........after all
And of course I'm talking about the whole world, not just europe.

Since religion invented it, it has it's own rights to do with it as it pleases,not because I'm deffending religion but inventors in general..


[edit on 22-4-2007 by pepsi78]

I did not say the concept of marriage originated in Europe, marriage is
something that has developed all over the world, however there are
many differences.

Tribes in Africa, that existed before the old testament regularly practiced
legal marriage, that is marriage had nothing to do with religion, rather it
was a legal contract, in fact it was not uncommon for the married couple
to not live together, and really only even see each other when they
needed to to fulfill the contract, that is to procreate, and that was
generally the only time they ever really had sex with each other, as they
generally had a partner, whom was more what we think of when we think
of a married couple, just they were'nt married, because it was not that
kind of thin in there culture.

Beyond that it was also not unheard of for a woman to marry another
woman.


Basing the concept of marriage off some old outdated book that has
been translated and edited so many times that most of it is'nt even right
anymore is not a good thing to do.