Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shake · 06-30-2003, 05:34 AM

The following is the text of an email that I got as an ACLU update. Apparently there are some right-wing groups pushing for a Constitutional Amendment defining what a 'marriage' is (man and woman, of course), thereby eliminating the rights of, among others, homosexual couples.

Quote:

From: <action@dcaclu.org>
To: <aclu_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: Oppose Writing Intolerance into the U.S. Constitution

> From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU
> To: ACLU Action Network Members
> Date: June 25, 2003
>
> With Canada preparing to legalize gay marriages, religious right
organizations are signaling their intent to push a constitutional
amendment
that would define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. And
a
Supreme Court decision on gay rights expected later this week will
likely
incite them even further.
>
> The proposed constitutional amendment would also destroy a wide range
of
rights that are important to the lives of unmarried persons (whether
unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, and gay and lesbian
couples).
Those legal protections include state and local civil rights laws
prohibiting discrimination based on "marital status" and state laws
protecting unmarried elderly couples who refrain from marrying in order
to
hold on to their pensions.
>
> Take action to oppose writing discrimination into the Constitution.
Click
here to get more information and send a free fax to your Members of
Congress.
>
>
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights...?ID=9977&c=101
>
> ************************************************** **************
> For more information on other issues and the latest news, please
visit our
website at http://www.aclu.org
>
> Help Strengthen the ACLU's Voice in Congress... Click below to become
a
card-carrying Member or donate today!
> http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contr...cfm?ORGID=AA02
>
> If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to
subscribe to
the ACLU Action Network Updates, click
http://www.aclu.org/team/member.cfm
>
> To find out what more you can do to protect your civil liberties,
please
visit http://www.aclu.org/action

I sent faxes to my Representative and both of my Senators (which includes Hillary Clinton).

Vylo · 06-30-2003, 05:42 AM

What they define as marriage is not the same as the working definition of marriage of family, at least that is commonly used in sociology. Race, class, gender, and age have nothing to do with marriage, it is a common bond between 2 people with behaviors based upon the conjuctive forces of love, trust, loyalty, honesty, care, devorion, fairness, healing and forgiveness, and entitlements and obligations. These same values are those used to define faimly. Though friendship may include all of these, usually healing and forgiveness and entitlements and obligations tend to be unique to family structure.

john_v_h · 07-01-2003, 01:42 PM

The usual bunch of hypocrites. Reminds me of the odious Defense of Marriage Act passed in California in 2000. If they truly want to defend marriage, why not OUTLAW DIVORCE?

Godless Dave · 07-02-2003, 05:52 AM

If they truly want to defend the institution of marriage, they should make 25 the legal minimum age to get married and stipulate that you must have known your potential spouse for at least 24 months prior to the marriage.

Vylo · 07-02-2003, 06:33 AM

I am assuming that comment about outlawing divorce was a joke.

Outlawing divorce will only either create more unhappy marriages, or make people even more reluctant to marry. The divorce revolution is merely the result of divorce being more accessible, the discontent was already in place, but people lacked the means to separate. Now that women have a much more equal place in the work force, they can afford to sustain themselves. Also more eqalitarian role models are being used today, people expect more equality in their marriages, and are more likely to notice the other partners dominance, and in effect, revolt against it.

Vylo · 07-02-2003, 06:35 AM

Godless: interesting point, and many people are voluntarily getting married later in life. I don't know about making it a legal requirement, but the divorce revolution has certainly awakened people to the fact they need to take it a bit more slowly and be sure they truly desire such a relationship with their current significant other.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2003, 05:42 AM	#2
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	What they define as marriage is not the same as the working definition of marriage of family, at least that is commonly used in sociology. Race, class, gender, and age have nothing to do with marriage, it is a common bond between 2 people with behaviors based upon the conjuctive forces of love, trust, loyalty, honesty, care, devorion, fairness, healing and forgiveness, and entitlements and obligations. These same values are those used to define faimly. Though friendship may include all of these, usually healing and forgiveness and entitlements and obligations tend to be unique to family structure.

07-01-2003, 01:42 PM	#3
john_v_h Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 1,760	The usual bunch of hypocrites. Reminds me of the odious Defense of Marriage Act passed in California in 2000. If they truly want to defend marriage, why not OUTLAW DIVORCE?

07-02-2003, 05:52 AM	#4
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	If they truly want to defend the institution of marriage, they should make 25 the legal minimum age to get married and stipulate that you must have known your potential spouse for at least 24 months prior to the marriage.

07-02-2003, 06:33 AM	#5
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	I am assuming that comment about outlawing divorce was a joke. Outlawing divorce will only either create more unhappy marriages, or make people even more reluctant to marry. The divorce revolution is merely the result of divorce being more accessible, the discontent was already in place, but people lacked the means to separate. Now that women have a much more equal place in the work force, they can afford to sustain themselves. Also more eqalitarian role models are being used today, people expect more equality in their marriages, and are more likely to notice the other partners dominance, and in effect, revolt against it.

07-02-2003, 06:35 AM	#6
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	Godless: interesting point, and many people are voluntarily getting married later in life. I don't know about making it a legal requirement, but the divorce revolution has certainly awakened people to the fact they need to take it a bit more slowly and be sure they truly desire such a relationship with their current significant other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.