Divorce poll : Would you back a Marriage amendment that

[mdmc]

Defined marriage as an unbreakable religious union between a man and a woman? Wouldn't this straighten marriage the most?
Everyone, gay and straight, could have civil unions that they could eventually "divorce" themselves from, if circumstances dictated.

Bush is using the bible to bash gays (his words "support marriage"), but my bible bans divorce. Shouldn't his amendment go all the way?

[supernova]

1. No, if this were true

I would still be trapped in a living hell. Divorce is very necessary. If divorce were illegal, my choices would be:


- kill the bastard

- walk out leaving no forwarding address

- spend the rest of my life in hell. Not an option.

With divorce legal, I was able to leagally, maturely, and professionally disolve a union that was not working. Better to be able to walk away an honest adult.

"divorce for convenience" is every bit as much as a canard as the "abortion for convenience" argument that conservatives try to make. I don't know anybody in any significant numbers to make it statistically valid, who does either for convenience.

using the "marriage must be holy" concept is not a good debate tactic, IMO. We cannot out conservative the conservatives. We should be for gay marriage and against the constitutional amendment.

[mdmc]

4. That I hear

Same goes for my sister, and a couple other family members.
This poll was rather tongue and cheek, and I meant no disrespect to anyone that has been through a divorce.
The poll did offer the caveat that civil unions (or civil marriages, if the semantics help) would still be divorcable. Only the religious marriage would be immaculate.
Again, it doesn't change your situation or opposition, but I wanted to clarify for other posters. :~)

[Mattforclark]

2. Yes

but only because in the choice it then says, "suck on that Bush!"

[RobertSeattle]

3. No, but it is a good rhetorical argument

Marriage must be holy, that's why between Reagan, Gingrich, and Limbaugh they've done it eight times!

[radwriter0555]

5. Hmmm, then we could have CU's for real people and those marriage things

for the cult folks who want their marriage defined thusly.

We could call it getting "See You'd"

"Will you "See You" Me?"

I like it! why not!?

[FloridaPat]

6. No amendments to the Consitution for marriage. It doesn't belong

there. This shouldn't even be an issue! If people want to get married and have all those legal rights, let them alone.

As for the Bible, it also bans murder (anyone remnember the illegal invations of Iraq), lying, coveting others wives, and a few other details. If gays are so bad, why aren't they in the top 10 commandments? We should concentrate on them first and then get to the rest. And the Bush administration is putting the 10 commandments in the same garbage can as the Consisitution.

[truthspeaker]

7. Bible is not the first or last word on marriage

One man-one woman may be the Christian definition of marriage, but we don't have an established religion in this country so, in legal terms, marriage is defined by law, not one particular religious tradition.

Members of a particular religious group can define marriage however they want but they don't have the right to impose it on the rest of society.

[mdmc]

8. I just don't think that America is ready for gay divorce

I say, "Bring it on!"

[eridani]

9. Yes, but as an educational joke

Like when the sanctions on companies doing business with Cuba came out, Canada passed a bill demanding compensation for property losses of Tories who fled to Canada after the American Revolution.

[guitar man]

10. NO!

No Amendments to the Constitution defining anything as "religious."
Religion has no place in the Constitution.

[arewethereyet]

11. the Constitution cannot address religious matters

seperation of s=church and state...

[tobius]

12. wont fly- support for divorce is strong as a response to domestic violence

nt

[doc03]

13. Would like to change my vote from yes to no. I just saw Rosie getting

married, no one should have to endure that!