Ever wish you could whisper in the president's ear? Give him advice on issues plaguing the nation? Well, here's your chance to tell the world what you would do if you were president of the United States. Twice weekly, we'll ask our readers a question about an issue facing the nation and post your responses here.

Today's topic:

On May 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the Associated Press reported Thursday that Bush will lend support to the amendment in an announcement Monday. The bill is scheduled for a vote before the full Senate on Tuesday, and then for House action in July. If passed by a two-thirds vote in the House and in the Senate and ratified by at least 38 state legislatures, the amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman and would supercede all state laws. Read more.

If you were president, would you lend support to the Federal Marriage Amendment? And why?

Click on the links in the box on the right to read recent stories on this topic, then e-mail us at speakout@foxnews.com. Check back during the day to read more responses from FOX Fans and to see if yours was posted.

Check out what FOX Fans are saying:

"I'm against all amendments to the U.S. Constitution based upon the incivility of today's citizens. Today, everyone thinks upon their party lines without any regard to the issue at hand. In the days of our country's founding, the people were of a disinterested nature, meaning they cared not about themselves but about the good of the country. Today, that has simply vanished from the landscape. I'm sure from time to time our living Constitution does need to be updated, but I'm always concerned about politics being a bigger issue than the issue itself. This issue about marriage does not merit consideration of amending our Constitution." — Steve (Corona, CA)

"The Federal Marriage Amendment is a sound move on behalf of all Americans. I would and do strongly support it. Webster's Dictionary defines marriage as, "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." Man and woman. In this day and age where our moral society is deteriorating and self-destructing, we need to fight to keep some things sacred and the sanctity of marriage is one of those things. This isn't discrimination against the gay community; it is a way to preserve one of the few remaining sanctities in the heterosexual community. I am not that closed-minded that same-sex 'unions' shouldn't be allowed, but let us not call them marriages. Let's set standards for same-sex unions so that those who are in that type of relationship can benefit in the same ways married couples do. This is a great country we live in; it's a shame that we have to have our government legislate these definitions because corporate America doesn't see everyone as equal." — Eric (Carolina Beach, NC)

"When will people realize that the Federal Marriage Amendment is nothing but a political ruse? The Republican Party is taking advantage of American citizens' religion in order to gain political capital. If I were president, I would most certainly not support a Federal Marriage Amendment, even if only because it is a issue for the states to decide for themselves — not the federal government." — Jaysen (Duluth, GA)

"Yes, I would support this amendment, as it is needed to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The family is the basic unit of society and needs to be protected. All the amendment actually does is reiterate what the definition of marriage already is — a union between same-sex partners is not marriage. If there is a union between any parties besides one man plus one woman, no marriage, exists no matter what anyone wants to call it." — Ken (Ft. Mitchell, KY)

Gay marriage should be proposed only after polygamy is legalized." — Joe (New Jersey)

"If I were president, I would not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Any argument that cries out for the 'sanctity of marriage' is clearly rooted in religious beliefs, and therefore has no place in our government. Instead, these arguments should focus on the rights that are denied same-sex couples. Can these right-wingers give any good reason, consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, why two people who have been together for the better part of their lives should not be entitled to health insurance benefits, tax deductions, inheritance through intestacy if one partner dies without a will, or any of the other rights that married couples so enjoy? Furthermore, if conservatives are so concerned with the 'sanctity' of marriage, why don't they fight to repeal the no-fault divorce laws, which are now available in some form in all 50 states?" — Nathan (New York, NY)

"I would strongly support the Federal Marriage Amendment. The amendment does not stop someone from being gay. It protects the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is intended to be a contract between husband and wife for a lifelong commitment to each other. The husband and wife agree to be true to each other and accept children willingly for as long as they both shall live. If gay marriages are freely allowed, then what is to stop a person from marrying their dog or cat? We need to draw a line in the sand to keep from eroding our country." — Ed (Fort Wayne, IN)

"I support the amendment because marriage is between man and woman — this has nothing to do with church and state. People can get married by justice of the peace. That is not a church marriage. But a marriage was and always will be a union between man and woman. Before you know it, someone will want to marry their dog. It must stop now." — Kenneth (Aurora, CO)

"Yes, I would definitely vote for the amendment for marriage only between a man and a woman. I believe this way is the only right way because that is what the Bible teaches — that a man and woman are married and, therefore, cling to each other. It is not normal for people of the same sex to be considered married. What are children to think when this is condoned?" — Jackie (Blissfield, MI)

"If I were president, I would absolutely back the Federal Marriage Amendment. When activist federal judges 'override' established or recently ratified state-level laws, we're really not left any other options except to establish an amendment at the federal level." — Jeff (North Little Rock, AR)

"If I were president, I would tell the people that America has far bigger problems. I need not list them, but gay marriage would be about 150th on the list. But if you asked me if I think gays should be allowed to marry, I'd say no. But if you asked me if I really gave a damn, I'd say no, too. I guess it's easier to make up problems than to really solve some." — Fred (Hornell, NY)

"I would definitely support the amendment. However, I fear one day that Americans will look back on our generation and consider us barbaric for even proposing such an amendment that would limit who we can and cannot marry. I feel that our morals are slowly slipping but are doing so in a gradual way, which many do not notice. I feel that we are in a way brainwashed by this slow decline to the point that we readily accept a lower moral standard." — Erin (Youngstown, Ohio)

"I absolutely would not support it. It is a matter that should be left up to each state. Why is it that conservatives, who typically favor limited government, want to have the federal government get involved in marriage, Terri Schiavo's ordeal, and Oregon's assisted suicide law? Somewhat hypocritical, isn't it? Do we really want to add an amendment to our Constitution that shouts 'intolerance?' To me, our country and our Constitution stands for just the opposite." — Brent

"If I were president I would support the Federal Marriage Amendment solely because this country was formed on a Christian philosophy and Christians, in general, believe that marriage should be with one man and one woman. Let's face it, this country is predominantly Christian. Now, I am neither a Republican nor a Christian, but I do think it's important to stand behind the values that our forefathers taught. That being said, I also would create a separate law to allow two people of the same sex to have a civil union, which, yes, is similar to a marriage, but by making it a separate entity, creates the ability for those people to have tax breaks and better insurance, and has no bearing on a Christian marriage. People on both sides should be able to compromise. We all have to live together in this country, so can't we all just get along?" — Bonnie

"As president, I certainly would not actively support or not support such an amendment. However, I would support having the people of the states settle the issue. If the majority of states ratify the amendment, then I would actively support their right to amend the Constitution. Personally, I would still think that it's a narrow culture that limits the definition of participants in a group public benefits based upon that group's arbitrary definition." — John (Fairfax Station, VA)

"If I were president, then I would lend support for the marriage amendment. Even though I don't believe in government going into private matters of its people, the court system has all ready gone there and they need to be stopped." — Lisa

"It is wrong for the president of the United States to put his support into any bill that would discriminate against any American citizen. Remember, our Constitution is a 'Living Document' which changes with the growth of society. It cannot be used to move back in time. If you feel that it is not a living document, you must also believe that slaves should not have been freed. We also have something called ' separation of church and state' which will be thrown out the window if this type of thinking continues." — Brett (San Diego, CA)

"As president, I would support this amendment. Marriage is that of a man and women becoming one. Because before you know it, common law marriage will be including same sex marriages as well, and if two females live together that are heterosexual for seven years they will be considered married? That’s crazy!" — Rachel (South Carolina)

"I would neither support nor oppose such amendment. This is a constitutional amendment and thus should be left up to congress and the states. The president's opinion on the subject is irrelevant. If the people want it, then it will pass, if they don't, it won't. I would leave it at that." — Patrick (Bozeman, MT)

"Speaking as a conservative, I would not support the amendment because it is a state's rights issue and none of the federal government's concern. This is just another example of how the ruling 'compassionate conservatives' have labored to create a pervasive ideology of fear in America in order to justify the expansion of federal authority." — Anthony (Tallahassee, FL)

"NO! It's discrimination through and through. Independent states are already making a move, Bush's defending it is for selfish reasons only. It's funny that Bush can support giving 'American birth rights' to illegal immigrants, but he wants to take away hope and keep rights away from those who without question deserve 'American birth rights.' I'm still trying to figure out what everyone is trying to save, what's the divorce rate in America? Why don't they concentrate on making divorce harder?" — Sharlene

"Yes, because it's what is right. It's not anti-homosexual. You can't make something that's wrong, into something that's right by making it a people issue. It's the act that's wrong. Sexual orientation isn't a right, if it was you could have, polygamy, incest, etc." — Lowell (Post Falls, ID)

"Why would I, as president, be behind an amendment that spits in the face of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights? To take away an Americans unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is un-American." — John (San Antonio, TX)

"Definitely! As president, I would safeguard America and this includes protecting marriage from those who would try to destroy it's true status. Marriage has existed from time immemorial, long before governments were established so therefore it cannot be manipulated. Homosexual 'marriage' is a misnomer in any case." — Treasa (Mobile, AL)

"I would not support a gay marriage ban. It is writing unequal protection and prejudice into American law. In a free marketplace of ideas, it is the people, not big government, who decide what their values and traditions are. And if popular values change over time, that is the people’s choice. Marriage does not derive its 'sanctity' from government approval, and it does not need 'protection' from people freely choosing other lifestyles. If a value or tradition cannot survive without big government backing, how legitimate is it? Besides, I have no fear of traditional marriage losing its central place in human culture. One man and one woman making a commitment for lifelong companionship and a nurturing environment for children is too strong an institution on its own merits to ever disappear. No one advocating equal rights for all Americans, including gay ones, is out to prevent or ban traditional marriages for heaven’s sake." — Scott

"I would support the amendment 100 percent. If framers of our Constitution had wanted gays to legally marry, then they would have written it into the Constitution." — Joyce

"No, I would not support the amendment. What happened to the belief in liberty and justice for all?" — Tony (New York, NY)

"I would support the amendment. There are too many areas of our heritage that are being illegally overwritten by activist judges. This is just one of them, but these illegal actions have to stopped somewhere. Regardless of the moral issues for passage of this amendment, we need some reinforcement of our country's founding values. There is only one definition of a marriage with the ability to reproduce." — David (Rochester, NY)

"When will people realize that the Federal Marriage Amendment is nothing but a political ruse? The Republican Party is taking advantage of American citizens’ religion in order to gain political capital. If I were president, I would most certainly not support a Federal Marriage Amendment, even if only because it is a issue for the states to decide for themselves — not the federal government." — Jaysen (Duluth, GA)

"I would lend support to the Federal Marriage Amendment. I believe it is vitally important to communicate to the nation that marriage is between one man and one woman. Our fore fathers did not think it was necessary to make such a statement, however, there are some who now want to change the definition of marriage." — David

"Marriage should be between one man and one woman. Having gay marriage is just one more way to weaken our moral compass and social system so desired by the left." — Glyn (Fort Worth, TX)

"No, the government has better things to do than invade the bedroom. What difference does it make if it's a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman? The sex of a couple should not be a factor regarding their union. Equal protection under the law should be afforded all. I would like to see more done in the area of adoption such as banning out of country adoptions until all children here have been adopted out." — Brad (Eagle, ID)

"If I were president, I would not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is not a federal issue, but a personal feeling. The government does not need to lend a hand to my personal life. The president believes marriage is between a man and a woman because he is a Christian. I am also Christian, and God said to love one another and not to judge one another. Yet, he is willing to judge other people's personal feelings and make them a federal issue. This is wrong." — Annie (Phoenix, AZ)

"I would definitely lend support to the Federal Marriage Amendment because marriage between one man and one woman is the oldest tradition in human civilization. If gay marriage is legalized in America, like it is in Canada and many European countries, it will open the floodgates, and the definition of marriage will forever be lost. Polygamy will re-enter the scene and our moral compass will effectively be lost. This isn't anti-gay legislation, as most liberals would have people believe; it is pro-family legislation. Furthermore, passing the amendment would put the issue in the hands of the American people, where it most deservedly should be." — Ashley (Cascade, MT)