From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: Michael Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The terrorists wanted to strike at the foundation of our country > > with their actions, and with our reaction to the attack, they > succeeded. In > > unrelated legislation, now, for the first time ever in the history of > our > > country, people are trying to pass a *constitutional amendment* (not > just a > > law, an amendment) to *limit* the rights of some of its citizens (not > define > > rights, as has always been the role of the constitution in the past, > but to > > actually limit rights), and most people have their mind elsewhere > because of > > terror threats, and domestic terrorism to realize what's happening. > > Cite. Here is the proposed ammendment: FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. To get the full picture, you can see what the ACLU as well as the group that is proposing the amendment. http://www.aclu.org/action/marriage107.html http://www.allianceformarriage.com/reports/fma/fma.htm I find it most interesting that the Alliance For Marriage either doesn't know what the wording of the proposed ammendment means or are openly lying about what the wording means. They claim that the amendment would not affect states that have adopted the "civil union" legislation for same-sex couples, nor prevent states from adopting similar legislation, but the ammendment clearly states that no state constitution or law can "require that marital status *or the legal incidents thereof* be confered upon unmarried couples or groups." This not only invalidates the rights granted to same-sex civil unions in states where such unions are recognized (sure, the union can still exist, but it would be in name only, not extending any legal rights to the couple), but also invalidates polygamy even in states that allow polygamy and where polygamy is part of the beliefs of the married individuals. This is a clear violation of seperation of church and state, as some churches recognize polygamy and same-sex unions. By extending recongition of a marriage between a man and a woman in churches, but not extending recognition to others unions, the amendment is clearly limiting the free practice of one's religious beliefs. Not to mention that the Government has absolutly no right to get involved in the personal lives of consenting adults. That is an outrage. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
