Date: 3/2/2004 4:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
hrm.... i think this topic has been debated too much in the past few weeks  |
Date: 3/2/2004 4:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Midnightly, the only thing I am debating is whether or not the FMA has a real chance at ratification, if it even makes it that far, or is it only a chance for many politicians to look good.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 6:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
I'd like to think that the American public will stand up for idea of freedom and not allow this to go through...but you never know...  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 6:21:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
IM ZP, at present, it will take 3/4 of the states to ratify such an ammendment. According to recent polls, there are not enough states to make it an ammednment. |
Date: 3/2/2004 6:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
I think this amendment will die like the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) did; FMA's backers will run out of time trying to convince enough people to back it. We have so many other things to worry about at this time, trying to force this issue at this time is just election year politics  |
Date: 3/2/2004 7:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
i feel that if this passes we are no longer being properly represented by our government  |
Date: 3/2/2004 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 20575
Bush is an idiot.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
This is a good post, Two Spirit. I don't think the FMA will be ratified. IMO, this is a matter for the states to resolve.  |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 4:07:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
I read an article that a friend from Chicago wrote a few weeks ago. In it she stated that Bush is safe in making the comments he did concerning gay marriages, since it is a major issue making the major news almost every day. For him not to make his comment would appear that he is not interested at all in domestic affairs. In a race that he already stands to lose, his comment strengthens the support of some that he was looking to lose over other issues. The politicians who have signed on to the FMA are primarily conservatives and moderates who are trying to hang on to the voting blocs they had in the last elections. She stated in the same article though that given the way most people feel on the issue, which is that gay marriage should be against law, yet civil unions should be allowed, that if Congress does pass the ammednemnt, then they look good to those who elected them, but do not have to worry about their jobs since the states as a whole will not ratify it without some form of civil recognition allowed for. I am with many on this issue. This is a state by state issue. States set the age and guidelines for marriage, and should each make the decision on this. If it were to pass, it would be only the second ammendment restricting freedoms to make it into our constitution, and the first, Prohibition, was rescinded. |
Date: 3/3/2004 11:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
The irony is strange, most of the replies against gay marriage I have read on USM justify not allowing gay people to marry BECAUSE it would mean a change in the law/constitution...  |
Date: 3/3/2004 3:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
I think it's a folly. Well, maybe not politically. Maybe by throwing around a constitutional amendment promise Bush will be able to garner some votes. But I think passing his proposed amendment would be a mistake and more harmful than helpful. JMHO.  |
Date: 3/5/2004 4:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
There should not be a constitutional amendment of any type for or against gay marriage. You want to legalize gay marriage? Look at Mass., they are going about it in a legal and proper way as a State should. It will pass or be defeated based on the elected representatives of the state.  |
