Well the vote for this amendment died today because it didn't have enough votes, but should this even be an issue of this year's election? Is this a wedge issue just used to divide the country further? Is this an amendment that Americans should support being put into the Bill of Rights?
It shouldn't be an issue other that to show that <REMOVED> Bush is an evil divider trying to deflect people away from issues that matter.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."— George Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Inner City Blue said this in post #1 : Well the vote for this amendment died today because it didn't have enough votes, but should this even be an issue of this year's election? Is this a wedge issue just used to divide the country further? Is this an amendment that Americans should support being put into the Bill of Rights?
I do not agree with gay marriage myself. Marriage is for the purpose of procreation, where 2 individuals (male and female) commite to one another to raise a family. I have several gay friends who agree with me and dont want gay marriage anymore than I do.
It's a smooth move by the gay activists though. Where 5 to 10 years ago, most of society didnt even agree with gay "Civil Unions", now everyone is all for Unions while not agreeing with marriage for gays. Try to take two steps, get knocked back one, and you still made one big step.
While the issue of who can legaly be marriend is an issue for the government... I personally think the government should get out of most every social issue and leave it up to the individual in most cases. I dont think there should ever be an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is a fantastic document all by itself. Every time we have a new interest group who wants things their way we have to "ammend" our most sacred document? Phoey!
Legalizing or criminalizing social issues simply dont work and never will.
The government spends way too much time on social issues that need to be left alone, or at least left to the individual states to decide. But of course, the feds have to butt into the states rights once again.
Remeber the Civil War? NOT a war about slavery as our rewritten history channel world would like us to believe.
The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems today ----big, intrusive government (States Rights). The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have the spirit of liberty and constitutional respect they did then, and political statesmanship is in short supply.
Anyway, refocusing on the issue at hand. No, gay marriage should not be legal, and currently isnt legal. But we dont have to ammend the constitution to stop it.
Wayniac
"The reason we can't find a relationship between the Constitution and the government is that there is none."
Michael Badnarik Libertarian Candidate
Actually, the Civil War was caused by slavery. Maybe not completely for the moral justification of slavery, but the Civil War was spurred on by the division of the north and south in agriculture, economics, and the plain social differences. At its base was slavery. It may not have been abolitionist North versus slave-driving South in such a clear cut manner, but slavery was an issue. If slavery was such a non-issue, Abraham Lincoln would not have ratified the Emancapation Proclamation to free slaves in the South.
But using your logic, women and minority groups wouldn't have the right to vote or the fair treatment given them in the Constitution. People always want to talk about government not intruding on their lives, but if you have a society that discriminates unfairly, you have to amend the Bill of Rights, which is a document that is about some legal and more importantly social issues. For instance, basic civil liberties are social issues.
I don't agree with this call to "states rights" either because it's obvious what this means. Their is a majority of people that oppose gay marriage, so they want it to go to the states because they know they'll pass laws against gay people. If there wasn't a majority opposed to gay marriage, I bet they'd be using the courts to prevent gay marriage. The courts are there for a reason, they must make some tough decision despite general consensus, especially if it violates the Constituion. I think the problem here is these people that oppose gay marriage, much like your statement, can't wrap your minds around the idea that a civil marriage, from the government, is different from a religious marriage.
Marriage is not about procreation, and it is really ignorant to use that as a reason to say gay people can't get married. If marriage is about procreation, then it should be illegal for a married couple that can have children, not to have children plain and simple. This seems extreme, but the point of a marriage is about property. Property, property, property. Back in the Middle Ages, in Africa, in many societies, marriages were forged between different tribes and empires to keep the peace. What is the biggest exchange they had for marriage? Some exchanged livestock, others peace deals, while others property. It wasn't about the children the couple may or may not produce. Plus using your logic, we might as well say that sterile couples should be separated because they are not fulfilling their "marriage duties."
I think another problem is this idea that the length of time for discrimination justifies that discrimination. "Gay people haven't been married for 5000 years, why should they be allowed to marry now?
If I can remember straight: "Black people and women have never had equal roles in many civilizations, let alone American society, why do they deserve equal rights now?"
The Bill of Rights was created for the sole purpose of amending, not so it can just sit there unchanged as the years go on. Slavery was legal, so you needed an amendment to make sure that didn't happen again, it wasn't some anti-slavery interest group.
Gays want to marry to receive the same benefits that their heterosexual counterparts get with marriage. And can I be clear here, CIVIL MARRIAGE. This is done with a judge. Not a Christian marriage, not a Jewish marriage, not a Muslim marriage. This is a civil marriage, one that is not about religion, it's about the apportionment of property and the sharing of that property. If you don't think marriage is about property then look at what happens during divorce. Disputes over property and finances mostly. Children may be an issue, IF the couple decides to have kids, but that's not always the case. There is no good reason to discriminate against gays especially since it's only about property and basic rights like hospital visitation. No one cares to intrude in your church, mosque, or synagogue.
Oh yeah, and don't throw red herrings like incest, pedophilia, or bestiality in the mix because then it's obvious there is a pull to change the course of the conversation, which is about gay people havng the same property and economic rights as a heterosexual couple.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
So what will the neolibs say when some dude wants to marry his ferret? Will that be OK? What if he then seeks insurance benefits for his "spouse", will that be OK? What happens when he wants to set up his will to have everything left for his "spouse" - I guess the ferret will be smart enough to seek counsel?
The point is that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, period. No ifs, ands, or (pardon the pun), butts. Regardless of whether you believe in God, it's clear that society has ALWAYS considered marriage to be between a man and a woman. A constitutional amendment would ensure that our nation recognized this fact as a matter of law.
usanow said this in post #5 : So what will the neolibs say when some dude wants to marry his ferret? Will that be OK? What if he then seeks insurance benefits for his "spouse", will that be OK? What happens when he wants to set up his will to have everything left for his "spouse" - I guess the ferret will be smart enough to seek counsel?
The point is that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, period. No ifs, ands, or (pardon the pun), butts. Regardless of whether you believe in God, it's clear that society has ALWAYS considered marriage to be between a man and a woman. A constitutional amendment would ensure that our nation recognized this fact as a matter of law.
I would rip apart your statement, because you clearly don't see the difference between laws governing humans and animals. Can animals take the stand in court cases? Can animals sign a lease on a house? Can animals decide to pull the plug on their owner if they are on life support? I'll let you figure out why your animal analogy is a stupid analogy.
"So what will the neolibs say when some dude wants to marry his ferret?"
Who cares! Let's fix health care, the tax code to SOAK THE RICH and end the war started by Bush's lies! Let the guy bang his ferret if it gets him off...don't worry, you don't have to watch.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."— George Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
But does the constitution say marriage is between a male human and a female human? I don't think so.
The point is that we shouldn't have to define all our laws to the last iota, but as our constitution gets hammered down by the likes of the ACLU, we need to close obvious holes.
Perhaps my ferret analogy is too far, but what about 1 man and 3 women, or a man and his sister, etc? As a society we have to pass laws that are for the good of the nation. Ensure marriage is limited to a covenant between 1 man and 1 woman would do this.
nothingsacred, what is up w/ the stick it to the rich rhetoric? Do you want to remove all incentives to build wealth?
usanow said this in post #8 : But does the constitution say marriage is between a male human and a female human? I don't think so.
The point is that we shouldn't have to define all our laws to the last iota, but as our constitution gets hammered down by the likes of the ACLU, we need to close obvious holes.
Perhaps my ferret analogy is too far, but what about 1 man and 3 women, or a man and his sister, etc? As a society we have to pass laws that are for the good of the nation. Ensure marriage is limited to a covenant between 1 man and 1 woman would do this.
nothingsacred, what is up w/ the stick it to the rich rhetoric? Do you want to remove all incentives to build wealth?
I'll say go read my ACLU response with response to them being anti-Christian, but you are also skirting on another one of the amendments. I believe it's the ninth amendment. You can't deny rights just because those rights aren't specifically stated in the Constitution. But I see they want to get around this completely by adding it into the Constituion.
I do not agree with gay marriage myself. Marriage is for the purpose of procreation, where 2 individuals (male and female) commite to one another to raise a family. I have several gay friends who agree with me and dont want gay marriage anymore than I do.
It's a smooth move by the gay activists though. Where 5 to 10 years ago, most of society didnt even agree with gay "Civil Unions", now everyone is all for Unions while not agreeing with marriage for gays. Try to take two steps, get knocked back one, and you still made one big step.
While the issue of who can legaly be marriend is an issue for the government... I personally think the government should get out of most every social issue and leave it up to the individual in most cases. I dont think there should ever be an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is a fantastic document all by itself. Every time we have a new interest group who wants things their way we have to "ammend" our most sacred document? Phoey!
Legalizing or criminalizing social issues simply dont work and never will.
The government spends way too much time on social issues that need to be left alone, or at least left to the individual states to decide. But of course, the feds have to butt into the states rights once again.
Remeber the Civil War? NOT a war about slavery as our rewritten history channel world would like us to believe.
The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems today ----big, intrusive government (States Rights). The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have the spirit of liberty and constitutional respect they did then, and political statesmanship is in short supply.
Anyway, refocusing on the issue at hand. No, gay marriage should not be legal, and currently isnt legal. But we dont have to ammend the constitution to stop it.
These are my feelings precisely
Against gay marriage, but even more against the government (especially federal government) getting involved in a social issue.
I respect your opinion, but wonder what you think about the government's role in incest, polygamy, and the age-of-consent. Does the government have any business legislating in those areas? They all relate to societal norms associated with sexuality, and thus parallel homosexual marriage.
usanow said this in post #13 : I respect your opinion, but wonder what you think about the government's role in incest, polygamy, and the age-of-consent. Does the government have any business legislating in those areas? They all relate to societal norms associated with sexuality, and thus parallel homosexual marriage.
Just because the subject deals with sex, doesn't mean it parallels homosexuality. A homosexual relationship can also have no sex. You talk about abstinence, what if a homosexual couple chooses to remain abstinent, because their "biology" doesn't allow for them to have kids?
Age of consent laws also pertain to contracts. That has nothing to do with sex. You're lumping ideas just because they are viewed as wrong, and that is a poor argument.
Maybe this gay rights thing happened because black people were given equal rights, because at one point discrimination against them was legal. Maybe that's the culprit!
usanow said this in post #13 : I respect your opinion, but wonder what you think about the government's role in incest, polygamy, and the age-of-consent. Does the government have any business legislating in those areas? They all relate to societal norms associated with sexuality, and thus parallel homosexual marriage.
I think polygamy and homosexual marriage are sort of related in that it distorts the "one man one woman" way of marriage.
I don't know really haven't thought about those too much. Interesting question.
I know age-of-consent laws are state laws and it would be okay with me if different states had differing laws on homosexual marriage but I do not think the federal government in particular should be involved.
To be honest, I wouldn't lose any sleep if gay marriage were legalized; it's not like the gay community wants to ban heterosexual marriages or anything. It's just that "gay marriage" seems like an oxymoron to me.
My huge beef with amending the Constitution with a thing like this is what will they amend next? Deep down inside, going with my gut feeling on this... the gay marriage thing is pretty trivial to me I'm not that fired up about it one way or another. It just isn't the type of thing that should be in the Constitution. Like Prohibition, that should not have been in the Constituion. That's why there was later an amendment to repeal it. Let's leave that document alone except for more important things like the Bill of Rights and abolition of slavery.
The government, certainly not the federal government should not be prying into people's private lives. I mean we can say what we want about the morality but the fact is it is their life. If gay marriage legalization is fought against it should be on the grassroots level (PEACEFULLY MIND YOU, NO LYNCHINGS OR ARSONY OR PERSECUTION) not at the top.
I think pretty much 100% of people who are opposed to gay marriage is a religious issue, so if you are religious, and homosexuality truly is a sin you can leave that in God's hands and just live and let live.
Society changes, for better or for worse, but as long as we are allowed the freedom to live the way we believe (with certain limits of course you can't go around killing people) and raise your kids the way you think they ought to be raised, then I think we're okay. We shouldn't go around trying to change people it's like trying to control the weather and even though Bush may have good intentions with this I think it will ultimately cause more harm than good.
07-15-2004 01:49 AM
