Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

The Christian Right has designated Sunday June 4th as a day when the attack on the Constitution and Civil Rights should be taken into the pulpits of their churches. Their cynical name for this attack in support of hatred is "Marriage Protection Sunday".According to the US Federal Government itself, there are over 1000 statutes that use marriage to determine an individuals rights and benefits. The Senate is scheduled to discuss a bill to add an Amendment to the US Constitution denying all 1000+ benefits to gay and lesbian citizens of the US as well as any non-citizen gays and lesbians living in the US.It is time for everyone, particularly Christians, to write their Senators and Representatives and show that the Christian Right cults do not speak for all Christians and that hatred and bigotry have no place in the US and certainly should not be part of our Constitution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This hardly seems like a coffee house topic to me, as it is extremely volatile.I, for one, do not consider the banning of homosexual marriages to have anything to do with hatred, at least not intrinsically.Yes, some, maybe many, who are against homosexual marriages are motivated by hate. Some, maybe many, of those who promote it are also motivated by hate. However, the desire to make a moral standard law is not a hate issue in and of itself, and calling it "hatred" is inflammatory and only adds hot emotion to the issue.

is this move by means of defining marriage in terms of a xian church sanctioned contract ? ( and which church(s) are approved )
how are secular Marriages effected ?
how are non xian Marriage effected ?..or is it targeted vs gay and lesbian citizens ?

It is defined as only existing between a man and a woman. It will cover and effect EVERY US citizen.For more info see Episcopal Bishops Speak Out and a wiki entry on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

clearly they are being loving by denying citizens rights and making a subclass. clearly they are being loving by preventing the fostering of loving and productive relationships. clearly they are being loving by preventing the possibility of giving loving adoptive homes to thousands and thousands of children who are now stuck in the damaging foster care system.it's not hate at all.

Assuming you don't purport to revert to some absolute source of 'rights' could you tell me from whence, other than your own country, these human rights are to be derived?If your country says that is what they are you are entitled to object and to try and change them (for your country gives you this right too). But you seem reject the rights your country will give you on the basis of your own subjective notion. Each to their own 'subjective' standard and may the best man (geddit?) win.Sure, why not fight for the rights for a mother to marry her son - or even all her sons? Get it over and done with I say so we can all move on.

Morality is exacty the point. Many consider it imoral for a law to stablish a group of second class citzens based on their sexual orientation, hence the lable "hatred". What the christian right must understand is that they do not hold a monopoly on morality.

Okay, I'll bite. Who or what, exactly, is being made the subject of hatred by those who promote gay marriage, through the act of promoting gay marriage?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Since we are talking about the laws of said country, there is no reason to need another source.The country guarantees equal rights for all citizens. It is not living up to this promise.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

It is hard to see where else it should go.I don't understand why the religious right wants to do this. If marriage becomes a constitutional issues, then marriage becomes an entirely civil institution. The proposed amendment, in effect, abandons all claims that marriage is a religious sacrament.

jarDoes the bill of rights not prevent such acts? I am no lawyer but there is clearly a violation going on against the security of person in this issue and I do not think it a stretch to say that it is an unreaonable search and seizure that is going on in this bill you mention.

I thought long and hard before choosing to use the term hatred, and finally decided that it was necessary. Yes, the issue of same sex marriage is contentious, but it is also one of immediacy and import. The Christian Right have used this as a wedge factor historically to manipulate votes as we approach election time. They seem to trot it out for a semi-annual dog and pony show just before every major election.If they were willing to call it the Marriage Discrimination Amendment I might feel differently, but they don't. We have had many discussions here over the years on this subject, and ufortunately, quiet discussion has not worked. Even though there is absolutely no argument other than religious intolerance that can be made, quiet debate has not seemed to work against the vitrolic pulpit preaching Christian Right.I am sorry if using the term offends some folk, but I'm not sure how else we can make the magnitude on this attack upon civil rights clear and visible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh dear, jar, this isn't about "offense" this is about truth and slandering your opponents instead of respecting them. You customarily go for the personal smear and that's all the term "hatred" is, a lowlife characterization of people you disagree with.

Indeed if you let the Christian right force it's moral agenda into law then you have let a forceful minority control how you live your lives, without your vote without you consent. That isn’t democracy, that's (far less than benevolent) dictatorship.Come on America! I thought you better than that.Edited by ohnhai, : added the brackets

This proposed amendment has very little chance of becoming part of the constitution. This is the religious right flexing its muscles, raising an inflammatory issue in order to influence the vote on other issues.