US Senator Proposes Constitutional Amendment For Marriage

[Doc]

Wicker Introduces Federal Marriage Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Defines Marriage as a Union Between Man and Woman


Wednesday, June 25, 2008


WASHINGTON – Saying that activist judges are attempting to redefine one of our nation’s most sacred institutions, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., today introduced the Marriage Protection Act, which would amend our Constitution to declare that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

“19 states have passed laws and 26 states have amended their constitution to protect traditional marriage,” Sen. Wicker said. “Rather than giving unelected activist judges the opportunity to legislate from the bench, this amendment will reaffirm what most Americans believe – marriage is between a man and a woman.”

This Constitutional Amendment simply states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Wicker’s bill is the Senate companion to House legislation introduced by Rep. Paul Broun, R-GA.

http://wicker.senate.gov/public/index.c ... &Issue_id=

 

[Mark C]

More of Big Brother, who is himself a very jealous god, trying to replace God's definition of marriage with his. The Pharisees were no more hubris-filled than this. God's definition just isn't good enough for them; ironically, that all too often includes many of the self-proclaimed "evangelicals", who fail to understand the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

This kind of evil is dangerous not only because it ultimately undermines what the Bible says, but because it also happens to do the same thing to the Constitution (as if that document hasn't already been abused enough). The Founders wisely limited the powers delegated to Washington; the Constitution NOWHERE gives the central government ANYTHING to say about marriage, and at a minimum, the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments prohibit the kind of actions contemplated by these meddlers.

Our Savior, of course, warned us about those who would replace His Commandments with the "traditions of men".

(And my objection is not merely the concern about addition undermining of polygyny, in favor of homosexual marriage - regardless of the intention of those "useful idiots" who make think they are doing the "right thing", but in fact play into the hands of the Adversary. )

This type of "solution" reminds me too much of a government which kills "the children" in order to save them from "abuse".

Finally, I often conclude such discussions with a reminder that Congress, the Courts, and the Executive generally ignore the specific text of the Constitution anyway. Why would naive people think this amendment would fare any better in a country where formerly "free speech" is now prohibited before elections, "shall not be infringed" STILL means except where licensed, taxed, or prohibited, and "warrants" are museum curiosities?

 

[Edward the Elder]

More of Big Brother, who is himself a very jealous god, trying to replace God's definition of marriage with his. The Pharisees were no more hubris-filled than this. God's definition just isn't good enough for them; ironically, that all too often includes many of the self-proclaimed "evangelicals", who fail to understand the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

This kind of evil is dangerous not only because it ultimately undermines what the Bible says, but because it also happens to do the same thing to the Constitution (as if that document hasn't already been abused enough). The Founders wisely limited the powers delegated to Washington; the Constitution NOWHERE gives the central government ANYTHING to say about marriage, and at a minimum, the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments prohibit the kind of actions contemplated by these meddlers.

Our Savior, of course, warned us about those who would replace His Commandments with the "traditions of men".

(And my objection is not merely the concern about addition undermining of polygyny, in favor of homosexual marriage - regardless of the intention of those "useful idiots" who make think they are doing the "right thing", but in fact play into the hands of the Adversary. )

This type of "solution" reminds me too much of a government which kills "the children" in order to save them from "abuse".

Finally, I often conclude such discussions with a reminder that Congress, the Courts, and the Executive generally ignore the specific text of the Constitution anyway. Why would naive people think this amendment would fare any better in a country where formerly "free speech" is now prohibited before elections, "shall not be infringed" STILL means except where licensed, taxed, or prohibited, and "warrants" are museum curiosities?

AMEN. What often looks good on the surface is only just another trap from below. It would seem that the role of secular government is to establish more pits and snares to entrap the unsuspecting unawares to take advantage of their ignorance of the law . . . GOD'S PERFECT LAW. Modern day Phariseeism at it's finest. I thank the LORD JESUS that I have the grace of GOD to avoid such things; but until we leave this world none of us are completely free; but we need not place our selves back under the authority of the schoolmaster if we are HIS. Yea, IT IS WE who ESTABLISH the LAW — not the pretenders to Christ! When will people understand that LICENTIOUSNESS is SIN? May GOD have mercy on our souls.

 

[welltan]

Re: US Senator Proposes Constitutional Amendment For Marriag

It is an indication that we are basically a Godless nation. Most christian denominations redefine in bylaws and doctrines what they want to keep and toss in regards to what God has already given. The spirit of Jezebel could be where Christian leaders work hand in hand with government to achieve mutual control of ethics or whatever agenda is convenient. Basically that means the established church and government are in bed together.
Satan does not need to do much work to divide and conquer. Churches divide themselves into denominations. Satan makes them purr and strokes them with church heirarchy, power, self-righteousness, and etc.
I agree that God has already defined marriage.

 

[rusty_armor]

Wicker Introduces Federal Marriage Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Defines Marriage as a Union Between Man and Woman


Wednesday, June 25, 2008


WASHINGTON – Saying that activist judges are attempting to redefine one of our nation’s most sacred institutions, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., today introduced the Marriage Protection Act, which would amend our Constitution to declare that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

As an ex political activist and political handler, I am not too concerned over this one. I'll wait and see if it has legs. It is unbelievably hard to get a Constitutional Amendment passed and ratified. And I can't see it getting past the Congress either.

Where our focus has to be is at the State and local level. Even scarier to me is the bureaucratic/regulatory agencies such as child welfare, education, code enforcement etc. as the primary threat to our families right now.

 

[Mark C]

As an ex political activist and political handler, I am not too concerned over this one. I'll wait and see if it has legs. It is unbelievably hard to get a Constitutional Amendment passed and ratified. And I can't see it getting past the Congress either.

While I agree completely with the pragmatism and your conclusion, Rusty, this particular former activist and still-political-cynic needs to point out that such congress-critters rarely EVER intend to see such an amendment actually pass. But they do plan to "make hay" with the deception that it represents, which is my primary objection.

When people begin to ACCEPT the DEBATE, and consider that there actually may be some MERIT to government messing around with things that belong to God, the line has already been crossed. As Madison once noted, the time to object is when the essential principle is first violated.

Child "Protective" Services wouldn't be able to steal people's children if that damnable agency had properly been prevented from ever EXISTING in the first place.


Blessings,

Mark