Mattforclark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:08 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Federal Marriage Amendment |
|
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
|
Protagoras
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:10 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Been married for over 15 years |
|
and I can't for the life of me understand how a couple nice ladies in San Fran getting a piece of paper harms me in the least.
|
GOPBasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
rhino47
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. Hiya Protagoras Welcome to DU |
|
:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
|
Kathy in Cambridge
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
19. I'm married too-how does this make my marriage less "sacred"? |
FreeState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It takes a lot away from GLBT people |
|
""Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.""
State law can not require the legal incidents be granted to gay couples...this is scary. This will take away any right that has been gained by GLBT people in the last 20 years.
|
GOPBasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
sallyseven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. Too bad we can't get an amendment against the . |
|
PNAC and all the bushies. How about one against forcing ones religion down peoples throats. I can think of a lot of stuff but it won't happen so I will go get a Martini. Neither will the ban on marriage between homosexuals.
|
tedoll78
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Here's something scary: |
|
The amendment needs 2/3 of of senators currently present to pass, provided that quorum is attained.
What were to happen if, say, the 60 or so senators in favor of it were to show-up while most Democrats were in one place far away (say, Boston)? They'd have quorum, and they'd have enough to pass it. That'd be a sad, sad thing.
Another thing.. I can see this coming-down to one vote. What happens if our presidential nominee is across the country when a vote is called-for? And what happens if our ticket is made of two senators who oppose it but can't make it to the floor on time to cast their votes?
Scary. We need a bit of padding in our senate opposition vote, especially if the Senate is the strongest block to the amendment.
|
karabekian
(287 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
15. but then it need 2/3's house and 3/4 state legislatures |
Kamika
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message |
6. goverment has nothing to do with it |
|
I'm so pissed off.. Wtf does the goverment have to do with if you can marry someone of the same sex
|
Birthmark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message |
9. You know what's interesting. |
|
They haven't bothered to tell us what constitutes a "man" or a "woman." What's the test? What if one person in a legal (by this Amendment) marriage undergoes a sex change operation? This thing is doomed.
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. Someone brought that up on NPR yesterday. |
|
The Constitutional scholars basically said that they didn't know the answer.
Now that's poor legislation...
|
Scottie72
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message |
11. This is the text of the amendment |
|
Notice it does away with civil unions. It takes away domestic partner benefits that localities and states may have granted. All it will take is a few law suits from the fundies to companies that grant the benefits to "unmarried" couples.
This is an assault on all the equal rights that we have fought so hard to obtain.
Please do not take this lightly and believe that it cannot pass. This is exactly what the right wants us to think. This is dealing directly with Millions of american lives. We lay down and not fight this it will pass and be ratified.
|
IronLionZion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 06:28 PM
Response to Original message |
13. There was a time when blacks and whites could not marry |
|
and 100 years ago Protestants and Catholics couldn't marry. Gay marriage is not so different.
This is amendment is just pandering to the right so they will re-select *.
|
DinahMoeHum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 08:50 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Dumbest idea since Prohibition. |
Lindsay
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
from the dumbest president since the invention of dirt.
|
Mattforclark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
before dirt was invented?
;)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:24 AM
Response to Original message |