"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> While I am sure that many of you will not support the first half of the proposed
> ammendment, (although I would point out that this first half does not rule out civil
> unions - such as the ones currently embraced by the gay community in Vermont.)
> Nevertheless, I would hope that everyone would be in favor of the second half. I
> think that this issue is so important and controversial that it should be decided by
> the State Legislatures and Congress, which are elected by the people, and not
> written by unelected judges.
>
> JDG
... It reads: "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." The first sentence of the
amendment would ban gay marriage. The second sentence would bar judges
from granting legal privileges to same-sex couples (or groups), but
allow state legislatures to make their own decisions in the matter.
...
(You should have said that the proposed amendment was at
the bottom--that was a lot of fluff to wade through. : ) )
I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two
adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and
state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage,
and you have my support.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
