A Further Amendment

[Fluffy]

Hello and welcome my fellow God fearing men and women,

Soon one of the greatest victories in the fight for the protection of traditional American values will be won and marriage will be defined in our revered constitution to be between a man and a woman. The evils of same sex marriage and the travesties that it might have unleashed upon your dear nation (just look at what happened to the UK after it was legalised over here!) will have been defeated and we can finally breath a sigh of relief.

However, we must not allow our vigil in faith to become idle! Whilst the Marriage Amendment will indeed have defended the sanctity of the sacred ceremony from one area of moral defeciency, there is another that has already taken hold. Its roots are deep and we must attack now whilst our victory is fresh! I am of course talking about divorce, an evil that regularly makes a mockery of the most sacred of unions by daring to suggest that such a God blessed bond of flesh and spirt can actually be broken!

We must write to our local congressmen and encourage them to get a new vote set before the Senate. Except this time, instead of reserving marriage for merely those people who God has told us it is for, we must demand that a further amendment be made defining marriage not only to be between a man and a woman but also eternal and unbreakable. This is the only way we can ensure that couples do not take their vows lightly and fulfill God's will!

Respectfully,
Your brother in Christ,
Fluffy

 

[Comet]

Hello and welcome my fellow God fearing men and women,

Soon one of the greatest victories in the fight for the protection of traditional American values will be won and marriage will be defined in our revered constitution to be between a man and a woman. The evils of same sex marriage and the travesties that it might have unleashed upon your dear nation (just look at what happened to the UK after it was legalised over here!) will have been defeated and we can finally breath a sigh of relief.

However, we must not allow our vigil in faith to become idle! Whilst the Marriage Amendment will indeed have defended the sanctity of the sacred ceremony from one area of moral defeciency, there is another that has already taken hold. Its roots are deep and we must attack now whilst our victory is fresh! I am of course talking about divorce, an evil that regularly makes a mockery of the most sacred of unions by daring to suggest that such a God blessed bond of flesh and spirt can actually be broken!

We must write to our local congressmen and encourage them to get a new vote set before the Senate. Except this time, instead of reserving marriage for merely those people who God has told us it is for, we must demand that a further amendment be made defining marriage not only to be between a man and a woman but also eternal and unbreakable. This is the only way we can ensure that couples do not take their vows lightly and fulfill God's will!

Respectfully,
Your brother in Christ,
Fluffy

I take it you are serious..... Glad you have the strength in your beliefs to post that here! Nice to see different opinions come out, rather than people fearing what others will say about it.

I fully believe that the gay marriage ban will be voted DOWN in the Senate. I also believe that gay rights will come along just as racial issues have. It will take time, but will get to EQUAL rights someday (at least on a governmental view)..... Churches will still have the freedom to believe what they do, by the same Constitutional rights that gay will have equal rights

 

[d.]

I take it you are serious..... Glad you have the strength in your beliefs to post that here! Nice to see different opinions come out, rather than people fearing what others will say about it.

he's being sarcastic, if i'm not much mistaken.

 

[spacemonkey]

It is people like you that make me glad that I live in a country with seperation of church and State. I can't stand the fact that religous zealots like Fluffy here want to tarnish our Constitution by trying to use it to force their way of life onto others. They tried that once before (proabition anyone?) and suceeded in creating a breeding ground for organized crime. The Constitution should be a TOOL used to UPHOLD the ideals presented in the Declaration of Independance, not a WEAPON used to DENY some people in their pursuit of happiness.

 

[Comet]

he's being sarcastic, if i'm not much mistaken.

Wasn't sure, I know people who actually do feel that way........

 

[spacemonkey]

Oh, and MY god is not one that should be feared.

 

[evearael]

It is people like you that make me glad that I live in a country with seperation of church and State. I can't stand the fact that religous zealots like Fluffy here want to tarnish our Constitution by trying to use it to force their way of life onto others.

It is sarcasm.

 

[MaddLlama]

Fluffy, you're so funny. <3

 

[Comet]

It is people like you that make me glad that I live in a country with seperation of church and State. I can't stand the fact that religous zealots like Fluffy here want to tarnish our Constitution by trying to use it to force their way of life onto others. They tried that once before (proabition anyone?) and suceeded in creating a breeding ground for organized crime. The Constitution should be a TOOL used to UPHOLD the ideals presented in the Declaration of Independance, not a WEAPON used to DENY some people in their pursuit of happiness.

There is no "seperation of church and state" layed out anywhere. The right the Constitution protects is that the government may not promote or establish a National Religion and that ALL have the right to worship or not worship as the individual chooses.

 

[evearael]

Fluffy makes an excellent point as to where this debate on marriage is going if we allow religion to determine the government's policy on marriage, in the civil sense.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, I'm anxious to see who gets to chill in the White House next, even who the official cantidates are. Personally I think that will eventually determine the fate of both of these bills.

 

[spacemonkey]

There is no "seperation of church and state" layed out anywhere. The right the Constitution protects is that the government may not promote or establish a National Religion and that ALL have the right to worship or not worship as the individual chooses.

That is what seperation of church and State IS!

BTW, I am sorry for the zealot remark if Fluffy was indeed being facisious. You should let us know that you are not serious in that case, perhaps a or something.

 

[Fluffy]

Hehe sorry everyone, I was indeed being... satirical .

 

[Comet]

That is what seperation of church and State IS!

BTW, I am sorry for the zealot remark if Fluffy was indeed being facisious. You should let us know that you are not serious in that case, perhaps a or something.

That is the denial of the government to ENFORCE religion upon its people, not to separate it from. There is no separtion of the two.... thus government gives money to religious organizations and religious organizations to elected officials. If there was a separation of the two in the Constitution, that would be deemed illegal or immoral at the very least. (Then again the Constitution is a great place for debate now-a-days)

and I would agree with a little or something next time :yes: (ha ha)

 

[spacemonkey]

Though the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution verbtim, I use the phrase like many others do, to summarize the First Amendment when it states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase has been used many times by the United States Supreme Court in its opinions starting as early as 1878.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

... we must demand that a further amendment be made defining marriage not only to be between a man and a woman but also eternal and unbreakable. This is the only way we can ensure that couples do not take their vows lightly and fulfill God's will!...

I've read enough of your posts to appreciate the sarcasm, and I hope others got it as well.

You do raise a good point. If the goal is to strengthen heterosexual marriage, then why on earth are the measures aimed at homosexuals?? If they are interested in the sanctity of marriage, then they should make it tougher to get divorced AND introduce penalties for married people who don't live up to their marriage vows.

I can't speak for other people, but I wouldn't have anything to fear.

 

[spacemonkey]

they should make it tougher to get divorced AND introduce penalties for married people who don't live up to their marriage vows.

Doing that infringes on the rights of those who do not hold the same view of marrige as yours.

 

[Mike182]

I've read enough of your posts to appreciate the sarcasm, and I hope others got it as well.

You do raise a good point. If the goal is to strengthen heterosexual marriage, then why on earth are the measures aimed at homosexuals?? If they are interested in the sanctity of marriage, then they should make it tougher to get divorced AND introduce penalties for married people who don't live up to their marriage vows.

I can't speak for other people, but I wouldn't have anything to fear.

in addition to this, the vows themselves should be "set" - it would be silly for people to make seperate contracts with God for their marriage, because that would mean each marriage is a seperate contract, making marriages unequal - an end to personalised marriage vows would also make it easier to police married couple, to make sure they are living up to their vow

 

[spacemonkey]

Bah! Its impossible to debate with people that are being sarcastic!

Basically everyone that has posted is in agreement.

 

[Mathematician]

I am really confused here.

Bush keeps going on about the "will of the people". Does that not include the people in Vermont and Massachusetts?