1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by SupremeEmperor, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. In 30 states in America voters have approved amendments to their state constitutions that prohibit gay marriage. Gay marriage apparanently undermines the 'sanctity' of marriage. Submitted for consideration: The best way to sanctify something is to not render it nonexistent. The divorce rate is at 50% and rising. At this rate heterosexual marriage will disappear within the century. At the same time straight marriages are failing, gays are fighting for the right to marry. Why is the one group that wants in to an institution the group being specifically exclude there from? How does this preserve the 'sanctity' of said institution? I propose an alternative amendment; no one who has gotten a divorce from the 'sanctified' union of heterosexual marriage, may ever vote on anything having anything to do with marriage.
     
  2. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Lol love it.
     
  3. theMaverick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFWTX
    OR require everyone who wants to get a divorce (barring an abusive relationship or something within the annulment timeframe) to go through an extensive course on what they are about to do, much like republicans want to force women who want abortions to look at the ultrasound and hear the heartbeat.
     
  4. Kay

    Kay Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    The government should get out of the marriage business completely. There should be no benefit as far as taxes go. Marriage is a contract between two people and should be handled in that way. Yes I want same sex marriage but only for the sake of equality. The paper would do nothing to enhance my decades oldd relationship with my partner.
     
  5. Emberblaze

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia
    okay, the government wants to play hard-ball, we'll play that way too.

    What happened to the whole "separation of church and state" policy? When the government says they are "protecting the sanctity of marriage", they are bringing religion into the matter, which is PROHIBITED by some amendment out there.

    The church's voice has no place in the government's decision over this matter (and I hate to have to say it like that because I'm a firm believer in God and place a lot of faith in him)

    And so, since the gov can't TECHNICALLY throw up that sanctity of marriage card, that means that the government is making an unfavorable second-class unit of society (ahem, us, the gays), which is violation of the 14th amendment.

    By denying us the right to wed because they are "protecting marriage's sanctity" that is implying that this is something un-saintly or depraved about us, as if we're some kind of moral plague. There fore, as I said, that's a violation of the 14th...

    But why the stars should it matter if it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL or not.... What should matter is it's just IMMORAL... it's wrong man. Jeez, why can't the masses see that!

    Screw legality! How about what's MORALLY right for a change!?
     
  6. castle walls

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Western USA
    The government doesn't solely focus on morality because not everyone has the same moral philosophy. For example, some people consider gay marriage immoral so if we listen to them it should be illegal. Others believe that outlawing gay marriage is unethical so if we listen to them then it should be legal. We could vote and then follow the morality of the majority but that could easily infringe upon the rights of a minority.

    Also, the phrase "separation of church and state" may have been used by SCOTUS but it does not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution. What does appear is the Establishment Clause (1st Amendment), Free Exercise Clause (1st Amendment), and No Religious Test Clause (Article VI). Basically, those state that there can be no national religion, the government cannot show a preference to a certain religion, you can follow whatever religion you'd like, and a religious test cannot be required for public office or trust. The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually used to sum up the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. I'm not saying religion has a place in politics. I just find the separation of church and state phrase misleading
     
  7. Emberblaze

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia
    Heh well clearly I know nothing about politics so I was jus using dirty politics but you get the picture ;p
     
  8. tulman

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kenosha Co, WI
    Kay is right, the guvmint should stay out of the marriage business. And a slew of other subjects too but that's for another forum.
    Castle Walls is also right about separation of church and state. The 1st amendment says nothing about separation but refers to establishment of a guvmint sponsored religion. One of the main reasons our forefathers came here in the first place was to get out from under the thumb of the Church of England. That's why the establishment clause was included in the Bill of Rights. No, I'm not religious or defending religion but if we take the constitution literally, which is the correct way, it protects a lot of things many don't agree with.