Friday, April 15, 2005

Defend marriage in once sentence or less

Today, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the “one sentence marriage amendment”. The amendment is geared to advance the debate on the marriage issue more quickly. Several times before the marriage act has been stalled in Congress, but Brownback is hopeful that his new amendment will simplify the definition of marriage.

According to his Senate staff, Brownback “feels very strongly that in order to advance the debate on this issue we needed to have more alternatives on the table, and, as Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, he believes it to be is obligation to see that such a debate could proceed efficiently.”

Here is the actual language of the Senator’s amendment:

“Section 1: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Section 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
This amendment looks to present one more option on this hotly contested issue. While stalwart actions against this definition of marriage are still expected, I am hopeful that Congress will enact legislation that provides a unified definition of marriage as being between a man and woman only.

As I receive more information on this issue, I will continue to post it. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts.


Doxxiegirl said...

Does anyone honestly believe that the government will be able to maintain that marriage is to be between and man and a woman?? Is it not inevitable that our society will come to accept homosexuals and their right (in their minds) to marry??

I do not support gay marriage or that lifestyle, so when this topic is thrown into the political arena, one has to cringe and cross their fingers and hope that congress will be able to continue to delay what is most likely to become accepted over the next few years.

Ask me about a new tax that is being proposed and i get a little heated, ask me about allowing gay marriages and i get seriously fired up. I just understand why, because of a sexual preference, that should make someone a member of a group. Why should we allow a union that would benefit from life insurance, health benefits, tax cuts, etc...all because of a sexual act.

To think that THEY want to be part of a special group and be recognized..its bad enough that every TV show now has a gay character or gay storyline.

How can you prove that a person is gay or not? It isnt nescessarily an obvious thing. Are they going to wear arm bands, to clarify what group they belong to, so that we will be able to know whether or not they are part of that minority group?

It is my hope that President Bush will help to keep gay marriage illegal, but I am not going to hold my breath that if it happens it will be permanent.

Banks said...

Sorry Doxxie, I think we can do something to enforce our mores agains homosexual marriage. Think about the Equal Rights Amendment. I was not around then, but I imagine that people were saying the same things about the ERA that you are saying about same-sex marriage, viz., it is inevitable. But, with the action of a grassroots campaign, and the courage of Phyllis Schlafly, the ERA was seen for what it really is and was soundly defeated. But I'm drinking at work right now, so maybe I'm wrong...

Doxxiegirl said...


Immorality is here to stay. It has nothing to do with government or with our morals. I do not believe that this world will get better, but that we will see a land reflective of sodom and gomorrah.

Call me crazy...but last time I checked...This world has been on downwards spiral since the beginning of what point do we see this getting better?

Better ease up on the drinking banks..wouldn't want you to get yourself a nasty DUI, now would we?

Forrest said...

Irregardless???? Hate to break this to you Doxxie but you just made up a word. That "word" grates on me like nails on a chalkboard.

Banks said...

How dare you argue with a drunk man; that's immoral. And how did you know about the DUI? Stonewall!!!!!

The world is on a downward spiral? "Last time I checked," there were tens of millions of people killed by the Stalinist regime. And back then, people were saying, "Why fight with the Communists? Can't we all just learn to live peaceably?" Now Stalin is gone along with the gulags.

And by the way, I take offense at "the beginning of man." Next time please be sensitive and say the beginning of "humanity."

I'm not as niave as to argue that the world is getting better. I'm merely arguing that the further corruption of our culture is not inevitable, as you put it.

By the way, Merriam-Webster recommends that you not use "irregardless." It's considered pretentious.

Banks said...


Irregardless is a word. It's just ridiculous and pretentious.

Forrest said...


Tis not a word.

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Doxxiegirl said...

Hello...people..."Irregardless" is from a SNL skit...w. Ben Affleck and Jimmy Fallon....

Good Gravy....

Banks, I get enough crap from Stonewall...ease up boy.

Forrest said...

Whateva. You used it in a serious context, not an SNL skit. I want to punch people in the throat when they use that word and act all smart and then they look around to see if anyone noticed how smart they sound. A guy used it behind me a few weeks ago in class and I let him have it.

Doxxiegirl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Doxxiegirl said...

Let it go man....just let it go..