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

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

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

It is not meant as a place to discuss other topics. The subjects beyond the planned action scheduled for Sunday June 4th and the Senate discussion and votes sceduled to begin the next day are Off Topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

By your acts you will be known.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

By your fruits you will be known.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Funny. I provide specifics, over 1000 Statutes that would deny rights to individuals if this Amendment should be adopted, and all you can do is attack the messenger.The proposed ammendment is nothing but a method to legalize and institutionalize bigotry and intolerance, an attack by the Christian Right on basic protections of US citizens.If it offends you to be included among the ranks of the intolerant, perhaps you should reexamine your position.Is there ANY justification for denying basic human rights? Is there ANY justification for Unequal protection under the law?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That would be a possible soultion. The issue though is that right now the term marriage is key in over 1000 Federal Statutes and an untold number of State and Local ones. The issue is how best to assure equal protection under the law.Marriage has always been more a contratual issue than a religious one. Even in the Bible it is seen as a contractual arrangement, one revolving around power or wealth, position or cattle. It is also seen in the Bible as a maintenance and support issue, how best to take care of family and clan, when a brother dies another brother steps in and marries the widow to keep the wealth, and productive children, within the unit.If the proposed ammendment said that all the provisions and stautes, Federal, State and Local that now apply to marriage would be extended to include any civil union sanctioned by the state, then I doubt there would be as much opposition. But it does not. Instead, it simply denies equal protection under the law to a designated segment of our population.That is reprehensible under any Moral System.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In the US, they are outlined in our Constitution. This effort is an attempt to change our Constitution to proscribe such rights. Certainly. In the US, by the statutes enacted by the Legislative Branch, the policies and enforcements under the Executive Branch and as deemed legal by the Judiciary Branch.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am calling their actions bigotry and intolerance. Them's the very words that describe such actions. It is their bigotted and intolerant actions that make them bigots and intolerant folk, not my accusations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why? The rates to move from a single plan to a family plan are based on the actuarial tables, and as more people are included, the rates go up. Why does the contractual relationship between the parties on a family health care plan make a difference? How is it different if your roommate was your wife?But that is also Off Topic for this thread. This thread is about a specific proposed ammendment to the US Constitution, not about every possible relationship imaginable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You might have a case if anything in your post happened to be true, but it's not.In the US, marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman. That is the purpose of the ammendment, to declare that marriage is only between a man and a women when that has not been part of our Constitution or Laws in the past.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Right now it lies in the local interpretation of the laws. Some local ordinances, and even a few State ordinances have recently been modified to specify that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Currently there is nothing like the Domestic Partner defined in the UK.Here in the US the issue has been mostly that the denial of rights to homosexuals was unstated, and ignored. It went on, but was simply not talked about.Finally we are beginning to hold such discussions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

at the current time the following rights and protections are being denied a segment of our population"

• equal protection under the law.
• the right to equal access to healthcare.
• the right to equal inheritance.
• the right to adopt children.
• the right to visitation and decisionmaking based on partnership considerations (for example:wishes regarding DNR and others).
• the right to equal protection in spousal abuse situations.

There are many more. The GAO Report listed in the OP documents over 1000 specific Federal Statutes that are dependant on marital status. There are many more State, Local and contractual limitations than even those.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In fact, I responded to you with a list of some of the specific problems related to this issue. Let's see if that is possible. While I disagree with that position, legitimizing same sex marriage would have no effect on that lifestyle. I do not see how what happens in your small community would be effected, and I would support your right to so behave even though I disagree with it.However, the lifestyle you have chosen for your private community should not be forced upon those outside that community.No where have I said that morality should be excluded from consideration when writing legislation. I personally believe that it is usually futile and often counter productive, witness drug laws and the failed prohibition experiment. But this is not just a single sided moral issue.If you want to frame it in moral terms, there is the point that you, and some other Christian and Theist groups take that homosexuality is wrong. But that is not even uniform among teh Christian church, some Christians do not consider homosexuality a sin, accept homosexuals into the communion and even ordain homosexuals.We should also though consider then the moral issues related to the harm that stance causes to those who you consider immoral. I provided links to over 1000 Federal Statutes that limit protection or resources based on the term marriage. There are many times that many State, Local and contractual items that also limit access to protection or resources based on the term marriage.What valid reason is there to deny access to healthcare based on sexual preference?What valid reason is there to prevent equal protection under the Law based on sexual preference?What valid reason can there be to deny inheritance rights based on sexual preference?What valid reason can there be to deny adoptive rights based on sexual preference?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion