A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

Kjv,

Let's try to reach an agreement here. Here is a unique solution.

I propose we allow both types of marriage:

- homosexuals can get married.
- heterosexuals can get married.
- We don't put anyone in jail for whom they marry.

In addition Churches would not have to accept anyone's marriage. But any married couple would have legal rights when it comes to the government.

This way each person could have the freedom to marry whomever they want. We would leave any moral questions between that person and his or her God.

This solution would answer all of the problems we have been discussing.

- Those of us with heterosexual relationships (and I am in this number) will not be jailed (as you fear).

- Churches will have the right to maintain their beliefs (as McGentrix insists.

- People will have the freedom to choose the life they want ot live.

This seems like the perfect solution....

What do you say kjv?

0 Replies

Sounds like a plan to me. Anyone who believes Republicans just automatically have libertarian genes are only supposing they believe that means taking off their Levis.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Kjv,

Let's try to reach an agreement here. Here is a unique solution.

I propose we allow both types of marriage:

- homosexuals can get married.
- heterosexuals can get married.
- We don't put anyone in jail for whom they marry.

In addition Churches would not have to accept anyone's marriage. But any married couple would have legal rights when it comes to the government.

This way each person could have the freedom to marry whomever they want. We would leave any moral questions between that person and his or her God.

This solution would answer all of the problems we have been discussing.

- Those of us with heterosexual relationships (and I am in this number) will not be jailed (as you fear).

- Churches will have the right to maintain their beliefs (as McGentrix insists.

- People will have the freedom to choose the life they want ot live.

This seems like the perfect solution....

What do you say kjv?

It would be impossible for the afficals to allow both kinds of marriages. Why should it be illegal for Church Leader's to refuse to marry Homosexual's? Question

0 Replies

Can you please explain to us, specifically, why it would be impossible to allow both types of marriage?

0 Replies

Canadians are in the midst of this battle at the moment. It will be going before the courts, tout suite.
I'm not sure if marriages are the same up here, as they are down south, but... in order to get married in Canada, a couple must procure a license, from the government. Regardless if you marry on a beach or in the house of the lord, which ever lord you subscribe to. This is not a religious document. If you get married without said document, you are not married. You just had a really expensive party. The paperwork is the legal contract, not the agreement before God, et al.
If a church doesn't want to recognise same sex unions, this is their right, if they do, well, great.
As for legality, marriage is a binding contract, a bylaw. Homosexual marriage would/should never be considered a felony. As such, you cannot be jailed for breaking a contract, that is unless you continually break it, ie. bigamy.

If the american government really thought marriage was sacred, Las Vegas would go broke. The quickie marriage and/or divorce would disappear.

0 Replies

this is just weird

0 Replies

Quite.

0 Replies

how ya doin', soz?

0 Replies

Good! You?

0 Replies

can't complain. my belly's full and my feet aren't frozen.

0 Replies

Hey, be proud of the unfrozen feet thing. The site of an old frostbite has been bothering me lately. (Cross country skiing. No gloves. Idiot.)

0 Replies

for my money, gloves are more important than hat. i mean, unless you've got pockets or something.

0 Replies

I always wear gloves, rarely a hat or scarf.

0 Replies

You go out muff(ler)less? Fine, you can get married.

0 Replies

Hey, nice segue.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

(And kjvtrue, "hey, nice segue" was not a homosexual proposition, just so you know.)

(Sorry, trying to be nice. Having a hard time. If you, kjvtrue, can provide some sort of source for why you think it would be impossible to allow both hederalsexual and homosexual marriages, I will do my best to continue to discuss this with you rationally.)

0 Replies

kjvtrue wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Kjv,

Let's try to reach an agreement here. Here is a unique solution.

[text from earlier post deleted]

What do you say kjv?

It would be impossible for the afficals to allow both kinds of marriages. Why should it be illegal for Church Leader's to refuse to marry Homosexual's?

Kjv, I am trying to find a solution that we can agree on.

I will change my plan a little to address your concerns.

1. We tell public government officials to tread homosexual unions the same, under the law, as heterosexual marriages.

This would give each person the freedom to choose what type of marriage they wanted. It would also provide a clear policy that public officials could easily follow.

Those of us who want a heterosexual marriage can marry as we have always done.

2. We tell church leaders that they can follow their own beliefs about Homosexual marriages.

We give churches and ministers the to refuse to marry homosexuals or evn accept homosexuals based on their beliefs. The homosexual couple would need to find a minister or judge who is willint to perform their marriage.

This would protect the rights of churches. No one would be forced to do anything they didn't want to do.

How about this. Can we reach an agreable solution?

---------
"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

kjvtrue wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Kjv,

Let's try to reach an agreement here. Here is a unique solution.

[text from earlier post deleted]

What do you say kjv?

It would be impossible for the afficals to allow both kinds of marriages. Why should it be illegal for Church Leader's to refuse to marry Homosexual's?

Kjv, I am trying to find a solution that we can agree on.

I will change my plan a little to address your concerns.

1. We tell public government officials to tread homosexual unions the same, under the law, as heterosexual marriages.

This would give each person the freedom to choose what type of marriage they wanted. It would also provide a clear policy that public officials could easily follow.

Those of us who want a heterosexual marriage can marry as we have always done.

2. We tell church leaders that they can follow their own beliefs about Homosexual marriages.

We give churches and ministers the to refuse to marry homosexuals or evn accept homosexuals based on their beliefs. The homosexual couple would need to find a minister or judge who is willint to perform their marriage.

This would protect the rights of churches. No one would be forced to do anything they didn't want to do.

How about this. Can we reach an agreable solution?

---------
"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."

I still think the Governed Officials won't aggree to it

0 Replies

But do you?

0 Replies

I think they will. Government officials are sworn to obey the law. They are also elected by us, and accountable to us.

After all we got the officials to accept the integration of blacks and whites in the same schools.

So if we get the government officials to agree, isn't this a plan that make everyone happy?

And I don't see why they wouldn't agree. This plan protects the rights of homosexuals heterosexuals and religious folks alike.

What say you, can we agree?

---------
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

0 Replies

On Tuesday I and others met with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and one of the major topics of our discussion was traditional marriage which is under attack by homosexuals and polygamists. He has proposed language that is different and simpler than that proposed in Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's Federal Marriage Amendment. Neither Senator Brownback's nor Congresswoman Musgrave's language deals with the issue of Civil Unions which I believe are as great a threat to traditional marriage as same sex marriage. (See my Op-ed) Still, I lean toward the immediate answer provided by Congressman Hostettler's Super-DOMA to slow down the march toward same sex marriage in the United States despite the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling ordering that state's legislature to provide marriage for homosexuals. Next week social conservative leaders, including myself, will meet again to try to come to terms with a common strategy in dealing with the push for homosexual marriage and Civil Unions.

0 Replies

A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know