Do we need a federal marriage amendment that clearly states that marriage is only between a man and woman?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • No federal marriage amendment

    An amendment declaring marriage is only between a man and a woman is an abuse of personal rights. Religious persecution resulted in the scarlet letter. We should not return to that. Defining marriage as a combination of elements is a pure definition and should supersede the religious requirement that the elements be defined.

  • The federal government should not be involved in what constitutes a marriage.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is a religious construct which has now become outdated. Marriage, today, is a commitment between two people no matter what their gender is. Gay couples deserve to have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. The federal government should refrain from making rulings that dictate who can love, who can commit and who can marry.

  • No, marriage is good for all kinds of couples

    Marriage provides a stable environment for children, but
    marriages without children are still valid. Marriage binds a man and woman
    together forever, but a marriage need not be between a man and a woman. A
    marriage nurtures love and fidelity, and gives both partners strength. No
    amendment should keep any person from the blessings of marriage with the person
    he or she loves.

  • A federal amendment to define marriage as hetrosexual only is useless and cruel.

    There is no good reason why senators, lawmakers, and the rest of our government should be wasting their time deciding on things like the sanctity of marriage, and denying gay couples their civil rights. The Christian conservatives are very loud and demanding with their claim to exclusive marriage, but the fact is DOMA and other amendments are cruel, senseless, and only work to discriminate against 8-10% of our population.

  • It would make things confusing

    If one is to go with the many rulings that have come down about similar state amendments, then it would basically make the founding document, at least in my country, contradict itself. You cannot have a country where equal protection and rights are guaranteed while also having a country where gender discrimination in a basic societal institution is in the same set of supreme laws of the land.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.