Talk:Federal Marriage Amendment/Archive 1

message: Under the Campaign Issue header it reads:
"In general it appears that the American public does not consider the same-sex marriage issue to be a political priority; one poll showed it ranked 22nd in a list of 23 political issues, sorted by "importance" to the questionee"
I encourage you to read this from the AFP today: []
"Moral Values" was a big issue in this election, and the Gay Marriage Amendements effectively brought Bush's base to the polls in many swing states (Ohio for example..) 
I've went ahead and edited for a more NPOV, I encourage people to add or edit. message me.
Howrealisreal 15:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see any reason so I'm removing, feel free to revert --Goobergunch 21:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate?

message: Kerry supporters have argued that his position is more in line with the sentiments of the majority of Americans at this time
Lol. Is this an intentional tongue-in-cheek attack on Kerry, or did the author not realize that it sounds that way? --Andreidude 18:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry

message: The article's lead sentence states:
:The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage legally as involving people of different sexes.
This makes it seems like it's a change from
* recognizing only same-sex unions as "marriage"
to
* allowing people of opposite sex to "marry" as well
Am I reading too much into this, or is it poorly worded?
I suspect someone placed this wording in there, deliberately. My 30 years' experience of talking with gays taught me the value of loaded and tricky language. Why, they're worse than communists!!
In particular, the amendement does NOT define marriage as "involving people of different sexes" but only as "the union of a man and a woman". I don't know who stuck in that involving stuff, but I'm too angry to look it up; just fix it, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay rights POV

message: I rephrased a sentence in the text section: "To some, this is a reasonable measure which defends the family and the institution of marriage as it has recently been practiced in the U.S." A quick look at the marriage page shows that the proposed amendment would not support all types of marriage that are present in the world; I think it is clearer this way, since it gives the place where the definition came from. Any thoughts? Mariko
Marriage has been one man to one woman for the bulk of human cultures throughout history.  Yes, there have been exceptions but I do not believe that any culture has ever recoginzed same-sex marriage as valid, so I have reverted that part.  If I am mistaken please post some sources and change it back. Respectfully - DavidR 12:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, your first line is incorrect. According to the Wikipedia article on marriage: Globally, societies that sanction polygyny as a form of marriage are far more common than those that do not, while monogamy between one man and one woman is by far the most common in western cultures. Whether same-sex marriage is sanctioned in other places is irrelevant; the form of marriage defined in the Federal Marriage Amendment (one man and one woman) has not been practiced by the bulk of human cultures throughout history, and it is not the only definition. The Federal Marriage Amendment does not aim to protect all marriages, since it does not allow polygyny, possibly a more common type of marriage than monogamy; its aim is to maintain the Western practice of heterosexual monogamy. I agree, however, that it might be better to rephrase the qualification as "practiced in most Western cultures" rather than "practiced in the United States." Edited to add: I should have provided a link to the marriage page in my previous comment. I saw your comment by the reversion asking for a citation; the marriage page on Wikipedia is intended to be my citation and justification for the change. Mariko
I would recommend keeping the qualification, since the current American practice of monogamous heterosexual marriage is not the exclusive model of marriage for the entire world.  Polygamy is found in traditional societies around the globe; Islam and pre-Revolutionary China spring to mind as examples.  One could argue that monogamy is actually a minority practice, if you look at "the bulk of human cultures throughout history."  The FMA would disqualify heterosexual polygamy (whether Islamic, LDS, or whatever) equally with same-sex monogamy.  JHCC 15:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage in the U.S. vs. [[Marriage]]

message: This article perhaps should cover this legislation that was just passed by the House.  No matter what anyone thinks of "same-sex marriage", this legislation seeks to bar access to federal courts by a segment of the American people.  Clearly unconstitutional, and merely a ploy to delay a plausibly inevitable reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act by the Supreme Court. -- Stevietheman 19:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking this should perhaps be a separate article, but at the very least linked, and probably briefly covered in this article.  Politically, they were tied.  As for it's constitutionality, though, you're quite wrong in your assessment.  I don't want to get into a debate here, but read Article III, Section 2 of US Constitution again.  As far as precedent goes, the USC Title 28, Sections 1251 - 1631 already do similar restrictions of jurisdiction. --patton1138 17:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage Protection Act