Marriage Amendment? by Connorflynn

You know, I keep thinking about this...

Why exactly is the federal government in the marriage business anyway? Haven't we come this far accepting that "marriage" is clearly a state issue, not a federal one? Why increase the federal gvt's powers?

Personally, I'd like to see marriage as a government act abolished altogether. Even as I went down to the courthouse a few years ago and signed my own license, I kept thinking "this is so dumb. What business is it of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who I choose to spend the rest of my life with?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:36 AM

KNIBBLET

If this amendment is passed, it will be the first time the US Constitution is amended to take away a citizen's rights. Wouldn't that be a crying shame.

State issue? Why is it a government issue at all? Wasn't it the church that started this whole thing of "joined by God, yadda yadda"? Why is it now something goverment puts their nose into?

Back when the world was flat and you'd burn in hell for munching on a steak on Friday, the church could push you around and tell you what to do. If you defied them, they'd but a zippo to your shorts and declare your ashes 'saved'. I refused them that right a long time ago.

I make my decisions and I don't base them on religion, taboo or superstition.

Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.

I, personally, believe that the whole point of the protection of marriage crap is to get the 'fiery pit' crowd all worked up to vote for Dubya. It's also there to divert attention from the 1000 dead and 7000+ wounded American troops.

Rant complete.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
You know, I keep thinking about this...

Why exactly is the federal government in the marriage business anyway? Haven't we come this far accepting that "marriage" is clearly a state issue, not a federal one? Why increase the federal gvt's powers?

Personally, I'd like to see marriage as a government act abolished altogether. Even as I went down to the courthouse a few years ago and signed my own license, I kept thinking "this is so dumb. What business is it of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who I choose to spend the rest of my life with?"

I agree with you, though probably for different reasons. I have always thought that the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage to me is a religious/spiritual union between two people and their god, something the government should have no say in.

That said there is an unfortunate financial complication involved in long-term partnerships and we cannot forget the other frequent complication, that of children. All people who are going to share assets should probably have a contract which details how they are going to divied up when that partnership ends.

My resolution is to have civil unions for all people administered by the government and then marriages for those that want them administered by churches in the manner prescribed by their own beliefs and codes of conduct.

I am sure that neither side (of the issue) will like my suggestion, as it lets no one tell others what to do nor does it pretend that the government can give moral sanction to a lifestyle [that is a government can declare something legal or illegal, they cannot make it moral or immoral.]

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:29 AM

The whole reason Marriage is a Government thing..is money, money and more money..taxes..etc..etc. If theres a way to make money from it, or tax it..the government will do it. Alil off the topic, I read somewhere about a proposed "Fat" tax LOL. (I'm still waiting for the sex/masturbation tax. It's bound to happen, I figure under a liberal (middle name "Tax") administration. hehehe.)

I agree whole heartedly, that it should be redetermined as a civil union, for governmental purposes.

The actual ceremony itself should not be controlled by the government.

Our laws are governed by our constitution, thus I agree there is a need for an amendment to prevent discrimination in this regard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:35 AM

Quote:
I agree with you, though probably for different reasons. I have always thought that the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage to me is a religious/spiritual union between two people and their god, something the government should have no say in.

I don’t see that our reasons differ here. I’d consider god optional in keeping with the beliefs of the persons involved – two people are perfectly capable of making a commitment to each other, deities notwithstanding – but I’m certainly not suggesting that priests, ministers, rabbis, high-priestesses, fellow practitioners, etc. shouldn’t be allowed to officiate weddings.

Quote:
That said there is an unfortunate financial complication involved in long-term partnerships

Does anything prevent two private persons from signing a contract detailing a financial arrangement between them? Other than possible court proceedings should one violate the terms of the agreement, I don’t see why this should be a government issue.

Quote:
and we cannot forget the other frequent complication, that of children.

Parental responsibility should be determined by maternity, paternity and adoption. Not marriage.

Quote:
My resolution is to have civil unions for all people administered by the government and then marriages for those that want them administered by churches in the manner prescribed by their own beliefs and codes of conduct.

My question is, why are the Civil Unions necessary? What purpose do they serve?

Quote:
I am sure that neither side (of the issue) will like my suggestion, as it lets no one tell others what to do nor does it pretend that the government can give moral sanction to a lifestyle [that is a government can declare something legal or illegal, they cannot make it moral or immoral.]

Hey, you can now count three sides that don’t like your suggestion. You should be proud

Seriously, I’m not trying to play Bill O’Rielly/Micheal Moore here just smearing your points as though that strengthens my own. Is there a good reason for the government to issue Civil Unions?

We’d have to change tax-filing statuses. I’ve never really understood what being married has to do with income tax anyway…

Insurance companies would have to find another way to determine who you could include on your policy.

Anything else?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:40 AM

SGTGUMP

I think that the only people who should have ANY say on whether or not consenting adults should be married are the ones who are getting married. Nobody should be able to tell them no. The government shouldn't be telling Americans that they can marry these people, but not these people. An amendment that defines marriage is the same as one that restricts it. What the government should do is ask the question: will this amendment make America safer, or provide citizens with more freedom? If the answer to that question is no, then what are we still talking about this for?

And I don't think that as a strait man, I should need the consent or approval of my government to marry who I want. I personally don't think the government needs to be that involved in anyone's life.

I have heard the argument that gays will ruin the 'Sanctity' of marriage, but I can't help wondering what the strait community has done for that 'Sanctity' lately.

"I read in a magazine, that you can talk to me about anything." - Prymatt Conehead

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:50 AM

Quote:
Our laws are governed by our constitution, thus I agree there is a need for an amendment to prevent discrimination in this regard.

More laws are rarely the best path to more freedom.

If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

That failing, we could always propose a constitutional ammendemnt forbidding Congress and the States from admitting impediments to the marraige of true minds...

It's hard to imagine things swinging this way - but to me it seems like a perfect opportunity to re-evaluate the way we've been doing things all along.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:04 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
If this amendment is passed, it will be the first time the US Constitution is amended to take away a citizen's rights. Wouldn't that be a crying shame.

Wow. Thats a loaded statement. Lets just gloss over the 18th Amend since it was quashed by the 22st.

Lets go in order and I'm sure I'll miss some but this is a good sample.

4th- takes away a person's right to be free from search and seizure, so long as its reasonable.
5th- takes away a person's right to property, so long as just compensation is given (eminent domain).
13- takes away a person's right to keep and own slaves...can't say I disagree, there are some rights we had that we really don't need.
14- takes away a person's right to seek and hold office if they held such office, then chose to support a rebellion. It also eliminates collection remedies for loans given in aid of such rebellion.
15- limits the existing power of the electorate by expanding the right to vote, again a good thing.
16- for the love of God...INCOME TAX!!!!!!!
19- see 15, allowing women to vote reduces the power of the men.
22- limits the number of times a person can be elected President. I bet Clinton fans don't like this one.
26- see 15, and 19 and ask yourself 'what were they thinking'? Just because a person is old enough to get drafted and die for their country does not mean they have the judgement to exercise the vote. If we can't trust them with beer how can we trust them to choose our leaders?

Thats a start and does not include all the court decisions that have defined the amendments to both add to and limit the rights enumerated.

Quote:

State issue? Why is it a government issue at all? Wasn't it the church that started this whole thing of "joined by God, yadda yadda"? Why is it now something goverment puts their nose into?
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.

No. As far as govt is concerned marriage is a legal act. It has legal consequences and benefits. Thus it is a govt function. Normally its a state issue, but when it treads beyond its normal boundaries into Constitutional ground, then the Federal govt gets to have a say. Think Mormons, interracial couples (Loving v. Virginia comes to mind), and Full Faith and Credit.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:09 AM

Quote:

If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

yipes..if you thought the original amendment issue was opening a can of worms LOL..I cringe to think of what would come from that hehehe. You might as well write off any resolution to the Gay rights issue for this century. Now instead of it being a federal issue..it would be 50 individual states rights issues with a Federal mandate **runs away screaming**

Quote:
That failing, we could always propose a constitutional ammendemnt forbidding Congress and the States from admitting impediments to the marraige of true minds...

see above LOL

Quote:

It's hard to imagine things swinging this way - but to me it seems like a perfect opportunity to re-evaluate the way we've been doing things all along.

Not sure I follow you here..the way we've been doing what things?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:

no true conservative would want to rewrite the constitution....

and putting homophobia into the constitution...
yes, that is a way to make future generations proud.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.

Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposal and Ratification

The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 31st day of January, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 18th of December, 1865, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six States.

Sometimes, there are good reasons to Amend the Constitution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:48 AM

Quote:
Quote:
If state laws governing marriage are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

yipes..if you thought the original amendment issue was opening a can of worms LOL..I cringe to think of what would come from that hehehe. You might as well write off any resolution to the Gay rights issue for this century.

I'm not saying it would be easy. I am saying this goes beyond Gay rights. I don't see why the government should have any authority over marriage. Any chance to deprive the government of powers that should properly belong to the individuals involved seems like a good thing to me.

Quote:
it would be 50 individual states rights issues with a Federal mandate **runs away screaming**

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm not suggesting a federal mandate. I'm suggesting that the federal government stay the hell out of it while citizens and their state legislators take the responsibility of correcting this malappropriation of power.

Quote:
the way we've been doing what things?

We've been working under the assumption that "marriage" is, by some necessity, a government regulated legal action. I question that assumption. I say we do things in such a way that the government has no involvement in marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:27 AM

Very interesting thread.

In an historical context, marriage was always a civil affair, since it involved the exchange of property, cash, etc. - it was seen as a contract. It wasn't until the 15th century, I believe, where the church stepped-in, developing it's marriage ceremony, etc. Being the heathen that I am, my thoughts are: oh yeah, cash in on a lucrative business! I went looking for some info on this, but for some reason, the catholic dictionary wouldn't give me any creation dates for their marriage ceremony. Huh, go figure. But then, considering my own biases, maybe I didn't look all that hard.

I am completely in favor of legal homosexual unions. Why not? They're consenting adults, and to my mind, that's all that matters.

Remember - not too long ago, it was illegal to have bi-racial marriages. Hmmmmmmmm.......

****
Noah's Ark is a problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:03 AM

Quote:
In an historical context, marriage was always a civil affair, since it involved the exchange of property, cash, etc.

Are you sure about that? Certainly wealthy folk of some cultures drafted contracts, but wouldn't normal people just have to worry about the spouse's family coming after them if they violated any agreement?

Quote:
It wasn't until the 15th century, I believe, where the church stepped-in, developing it's marriage ceremony, etc. . .the catholic dictionary wouldn't give me any creation dates for their marriage ceremony.

1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic weddings be officiated by a priest with 2 witnesses present. I don't know about the actual wedding ceremony as it's celebrated today. The Church was often involved in the ceremonies before then, but it wasn't an official or required involvement. At some point (including the colonization of the US) the Church of England didn't allow secular marriage.

AFAIK the Justinian Code (~550 AD?) was the first western legal document regulating marriage. I don't know how widespread it became, or when, outside Rome.

Quote:
I am completely in favor of legal homosexual unions. Why not?

I'm certainly not in favor of homosexual unions being illegal, I just don't see why it should be a legal question at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:09 AM

Thank you, Beowulf! I appreciate the dates!

****
Noah's Ark is a problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Quote:
Quote:
If state laws governing marriage are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

yipes..if you thought the original amendment issue was opening a can of worms LOL..I cringe to think of what would come from that hehehe. You might as well write off any resolution to the Gay rights issue for this century.

I'm not saying it would be easy. I am saying this goes beyond Gay rights. I don't see why the government should have any authority over marriage. Any chance to deprive the government of powers that should properly belong to the individuals involved seems like a good thing to me.

Quote:
it would be 50 individual states rights issues with a Federal mandate **runs away screaming**

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm not suggesting a federal mandate. I'm suggesting that the federal government stay the hell out of it while citizens and their state legislators take the responsibility of correcting this malappropriation of power.

Quote:
the way we've been doing what things?
We've been working under the assumption that "marriage" is, by some necessity, a government regulated legal action. I question that assumption. I say we do things in such a way that the government has no involvement in marriage.

I agree with everything you said. It's basically what I was suggesting with my version of the amendment hehe. It just makes it a federal law versus leaving it to individual states to hash out and leave open th possibility for each state's law to be declared unconstitutional ina litigious situation. I'd rather see it handled in an amendment fashion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
I'm certainly not in favor of homosexual unions being illegal, I just don't see why it should be a legal question at all.

Unfortunately, because currently Gay Unions are illegal.

A good example , IIRC there are a couple of states where medical marijuana has been legalized, however the federal law still outlaws the use of it. So an individual, though free to use it by state law, can be arrested and prosecuted federally. Thus again, the need for a Federal amendment IMHO.

I'll see if I can find some time relevant articles to support my claims.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:28 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I may support the Marriage Amendment for several reasons.

First I believe the United States is a federal republic. We are a union of independent states united under a federal government. Each state has a right to its democratic process and traditions and a majority of states should not be forced to divest their culture because a minority of states (or a single state) wish to change certain bedrock ideals. I believe Massachusetts has a right to redefine marriage if a majority of its people feels that this is appropriate. That is the way a democracy works. But Massachusetts does not have the right to order Missouri to redefine marriage, especially since over 70% of the people in Missouri do not believe that marriage should be define the Massachusetts believes it should be defined. Both Massachusetts and Missouri have a right to their respective democratically legislative laws. That is the reason why this country was established as a federal republic. If the original thirteen colonies had wanted a single nation and a single set of laws they would have united under a single government, but they did not. They united under a series of governments each holding power over a certain jurisdiction.

Second, there has been an increasing number of Left-wing judges opting to legislative law from the bench. This is even more troubling then the above states rights issue, because this is anti-democratic. Judges creating instead of interpreting law is probably the most dangerous threat to our freedom that this country has ever seen. Already it is possible for a single judge to autocratically dictate law powerful enough to overturn law legislated in congress. This means that in our “free” nation we have appointed dictators who are able to overturn the will of elected representatives of the people on specific issues. For example, when congress passed a law making Partial Birth Abortions illegal as an elective procedure, they did so with a huge support. But this law was overturned immediately by a single judge.

It is important that we as a nation retain our federal system in order to preserve our widely varying freedoms and institutions and cultural diversity. It is even more important that we take measures to assure that autocratic judges cannot dictator the law. It is a frightening testament to how much we have lost that we must alter the Constitution to prevent judges from usurping the will of the people. How marriage is defined is less important then how its definition is being used to push certain agendas. An amendment to the Constitutions should seek, not to define marriage, but to assure that each elected state legislative body has the right and privilege to define marriage.

I have not read any proposed amendment for the Defense of Marriage Act, so I do not know what is currently in the works. After I have had an opportunity to read a proposition on the issue, I may decide whether I will continue to support this act. In general, I think it is a necessary amendment under the circumstances.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:34 AM

I was preparing a big response, but I hit upon a point that made me reconsider my whole position.

The issue of family. A family member has certain legal and social priviliges over a non-family member, even a good friend (they are not necessarily great or far reaching and can vary quite a bit). My wife (if I had one) is family, my girlfriend (if I had one) is not.

It might actually be important to have a legal way of joining people into a family. As much as I don't like the idea of government being involved in (well, pretty much anything), I wouldn't go so far as to say that their can be a society without some arbitrating body.

While it might be nice to say that I should have the final say on who is and isn't my family; there needs to be a rule that society as a whole can use to arbitrate disputes. Not to mention you can't choose most of your family (heck at one time you couldn't even choose your spouse and in some places you still can't).

I am going to have to think about this element of marriage more to be really coherent. The best discussions are the ones that open up new thoughts.

Thanks

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:42 AM

KNIBBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For example, when congress passed a law making Partial Birth Abortions illegal as an elective procedure, they did so with a huge support. But this law was overturned immediately by a single judge.

Perhaps the judge saw past the inflamatory and inaccurate terminology and decided that the right to privacy outweighed the need for elected officials to kiss the asses of the far right types?
Loud support doesn't equal huge support.

The moral majority is neither. They're just the ones with the greatest desire to control others.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:07 AM

YENRIVER

Allowing gay people to get married does not change how straight people are married. I am a student in New Paltz, NY, where some of the first (unofficial) gay marriages took place. We had protestors with signs about protecting traditional marriage.

Allowing gay people to get married in no way affects traditional marriage. If civil unions become legal, straight people will still be able to get married, so I don't understand why so many people are opposed to gay people being allowed to marry the person that they want to spend the rest of their lives with. To me marriage is the union of two PEOPLE who want to spend their lives together.

I also do not believe that a state vote for civil unions is a good idea. Why should a 70% of a state's population restrict the rights of 30% of the state?

Civil unions, gay marriages, etc. should be an option for all citizens. Whether or not one person agrees with it is irrelevant. If you don't like gay marriages, don't have one. But let gay people get married and be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:12 AM

Quote:
It might actually be important to have a legal way of joining people into a family. As much as I don't like the idea of government being involved in (well, pretty much anything), I wouldn't go so far as to say that their can be a society without some arbitrating body.

Amen to that statement. I've read about and have known a few gay couples that suffered from the fact that they were gay couples. There was a couple that lived near my in-laws. They had been together for almost 20 years and would have been married if it had been legal. One of them got Pancreatic cancer. His family detested the fact that he was a homosexual and refused to allow his companion the right to see him on his death bed. Sadly, the man who became in my opinion a widower (when your with someone for 20 years as lovers.. you might as well have been married), without being able to say goodbye was wronged horrifically. Even more sadly, the cancer onset was so quick that they were unable to properly prepare for the eventuality that one or the other pass away (hindsight is 20/20). The family of the deceased kicked him out of his home (because his name wasn't on the deed) he had shared for almost 20 years. This is why I think Gay Unions should be allowed. They deserve the same protections under law that a straight couple has.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:25 AM

Quote:
For example, when congress passed a law making Partial Birth Abortions illegal as an elective procedure, they did so with a huge support. But this law was overturned immediately by a single judge

Hot-button issue for me. I'm taking a deep breath and really trying to be civil here. This is an issue that involves ONLY a woman. Not a bunch of old white men in suits. Thankfully, the court(s) recognized this fact.

And as Knibblet said, loud doesn't support huge.

****
Keep your laws off my body.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:31 AM

Quote:
CONNORFLYNN wrote:
...a federal law versus leaving it to individual states to hash out and leave open th possibility for each state's law to be declared unconstitutional ina litigious situation.

If the end result is that there are no laws, how can the supreme court rule them unconsitutional?

Quote:
CONNORFLYNN wrote:
Unfortunately, because currently Gay Unions are illegal.

Oh, I understand why it is a legal issue. I just don't think it should be.

Quote:
CONNORFLYNN wrote:
states where medical marijuana has been legalized. . . the need for a Federal amendment IMHO

That would be a valid comparison if federal law actually prohibited gay marriage. To my knowlege, at this point it doesn't. Why pass a constitutional ammendment when you can just change or strike the laws that are on the books?

Quote:
FINN MAC CUMHAL wrote:
An amendment to the Constitutions should seek, not to define marriage, but to assure that each elected state legislative body has the right and privilege to define marriage.

Considering that that is the situation right now, what purpose would the ammendment serve? I don't think more federal legislation is what we need to protect the power of the states.

Quote:
ARAWAEN wrote:
A family member has certain legal and social priviliges over a non-family member

The social issues are your problem. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I just mean it's up to you how to determine who is and isn't family - not the government. I certainly considered my "girlfriend" family for a while before we got married.

You're right that it would take some legal adjustment to deal with no marriage. A Will is a good idea even if you are married though, and it would tend to clear up any inheritance issues. I'm not sure what all else there is though...

Quote:
YENRIVER:
I also do not believe that a state vote for civil unions is a good idea. Why should a 70% of a state's population restrict the rights of 30% of the state?

How do you propose to change the laws then? Just ignore them? Ask the Queen for a ruling?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:35 AM

KNIBBLET

It's called fear. It's called hate. It's called irrationality. It doesn't have to make sense - it only has to appeal to those who write checks to politicians.

Quote:
Originally posted by YenRiver:
Allowing gay people to get married does not change how straight people are married. Allowing gay people to get married in no way affects traditional marriage. If civil unions become legal, straight people will still be able to get married...

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:36 AM

Quote:
Allowing gay people to get married in no way affects traditional marriage. If civil unions become legal, straight people will still be able to get married, so I don't understand why so many people are opposed to gay people being allowed to marry the person that they want to spend the rest of their lives with. To me marriage is the union of two PEOPLE who want to spend their lives together.

The issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate is the desire to see government stamp its approval on the morality of the issue. [Something I don't believe the government has the power to do, not that this stops the government from trying on every issue going.] Most people believe that certain things are morally wrong (we just disagree quite abit about which specific things they are). Those who engage in those behaviors are damaging themselves and society. These might be drug use, hand guns, paying income tax, promiscuity, contraceptive use, pollution, violent videogames, reading Harry Potter, etc.(trying to cover the whole ideological spectrum here).

If you genuinely believe that something is damaging to individuals and more so if you think it is damaging to society, it is not unreasonable to think the government should do something to protect the community (from the individual) and the individual (from himself).

We all tend to scoff at the things we don't think are bad and try to stop those we do.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:42 AM

Quote:
MiloraDell wrote: [re: partial birth abortions]
This is an issue that involves ONLY a woman.

Of course, that is the fundamental difference between those who oppose and those who support the right to abortion in general.

You say the issue involves only one woman.

Some folks think there's at least one other person affected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:16 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Perhaps the judge saw past the inflamatory and inaccurate terminology and decided that the right to privacy outweighed the need for elected officials to kiss the asses of the far right types?
Loud support doesn't equal huge support.

The moral majority is neither. They're just the ones with the greatest desire to control others.

So we dismiss the democratic process based on your assessment of what constitutes support? Actually polls indicated that a majority of people in the nation supported the legislated law to outlaw Partial Birth Abortions.

But regardless of your assessment of this law, we are not a nation ruled by Knibblet or Me or any one person. We are a nation ruled by elected legislated bodies. And judges do not have the right to dictate law to the people. Their job is to interpret the law, not to create it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Considering that that is the situation right now, what purpose would the ammendment serve? I don't think more federal legislation is what we need to protect the power of the states.

Because it is not the situation right now. If it were, I would not support the amendment. The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution could provide an autocratic judge the avenue to impose the will of one state on all the others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:50 AM

Quote:
Of course, that is the fundamental difference between those who oppose and those who support the right to abortion in general.

You say the issue involves only one woman.

Some folks think there's at least one other person affected.

Well, when that one other "person" can breathe for themselves, then they can have an opinion. If you're refering to a man - when he's birthing it, then it's his decision.

I recognize that I am a strident militant on this issue, therefore I will excuse myself from any further discussions in this vein.

My one parting point - nobody's "pro-abortion." Nobody's saying person X should have an abortion, has to have an abortion, etc. What's being said is - person X should be able to make that CHOICE for herself.

****
Noah's Ark is a problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:10 PM

SLOWSMURF

By the way, in reference to legal/social rights they have. One example of a BIG thing they can miss out on, they can't be put on their companions heatlh insurance. So if they don't personally work, they're pretty much screwed for getting health insurance.

There are MANY such things that are simply taken for granted that non married couples simply cannot get.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:42 PM

TIMBEISHIR

Let me say that last Wednesday morning, when I saw the headlines I was embarrassed to live in Missouri.

Now, not only do we have a law denying a certain group certain civil rights, we have an amendment saying the same damn thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:

I agree with everything you said. It's basically what I was suggesting with my version of the amendment hehe. It just makes it a federal law versus leaving it to individual states to hash out and leave open th possibility for each state's law to be declared unconstitutional ina litigious situation. I'd rather see it handled in an amendment fashion.

There is already Federal law that effectively removes any benefit from same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage act, which became Public Law 104-199, apparently without much notice, back in 1996. Hmmm. Wonder who was President then? (sorry, couldn't resist

)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act' .

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act , record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE .

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1996.

Many civil benefits accrue to a couple from the legally recognized state of marriage. Tax breaks, joint ownership of property, inheritance, ability to make medical decisions for, or even visit, a partner in hospital, etc. PL104-199 says Federal benefits only apply to marriage between a man and a woman, and that no state has to allow any benefits to a same-sex couple married under another state's laws.

The only reason for the "Marriage Amendment" is to effectively keep the courts from declaring the "Defense or Marriage Act" unconstitutional.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:26 PM

LTNOWIS

Now for my signature responding to every post in the board.
Posted by knibblet

Quote:
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.

It's not really private. Someone's got to perform the ceremony for you. Likewise, you gotta tell your family if you expect any gifts. The government has to say who can marry and who can't because they're the ones who give you the tax modifications. A government-sanctioned marriage or civil union, affects child custody, inheritance, hospital visits, and some other important stuff, as has been stated. The government is the thing keeping us from being able to marry a minor or a sibling or a sheep. That's why I really don't buy the "government should stay out of marriage" argument. On NPR they suggested the "civil unions for everyone" solution, but I remember there was a key flaw in that plan. I forget what it was, but it was really big. The church has a say in weddings because they're the ones letting you use the church. And if you get married in a courthouse, they can excommunicate you and ban you from entering.

Posted by Beowulf:

Quote:

Quote:
Our laws are governed by our constitution, thus I agree there is a need for an amendment to prevent discrimination in this regard.

More laws are rarely the best path to more freedom.

If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

I disagree with the first sentence. How else could we have banned slavery without an amendment banning it? Likewise, women couldn't vote without another law. Neither could we have done anything about workplace discrimination. And while state laws could be individually repealed, it'd take a heck of a long time. Missouri certainly won't legalize gay marriage anytime soon. Not that I have a problem with this state's rights approach. "Oh no, gay couples have to drive to get married! Soon we'll be building death camps!"

Posted by embers:

Quote:
and putting homophobia into the constitution...
yes, that is a way to make future generations proud.

See, I really don't think this argument makes sense. You don't know if future generations will be more socially conservative or liberal than you. In ancient Sparta, it used to be commonplace for 14-year-old boys to have sex with older me. Nowadays it's not. When they wrote the law banning gay sex with minors, a few people probably said the government had to right to legislate consensual sex, and that future generations would be ashamed of such a hateful law. Are modern Greeks? I'm no expert, but I'd have to say no. Look at Roe vs. Wade. Some people today are proud of that ruling, others not so much.

Posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:

Quote:
First I believe the United States is a federal republic. We are a union of independent states united under a federal government... If the original thirteen colonies had wanted a single nation and a single set of laws they would have united under a single government, but they did not. They united under a series of governments each holding power over a certain jurisdiction.

While I agree with your assertation that this should be the decision of individual states, I'm not so sure about your "federal republic" argument. I mean, we're ONE NATION. Each state is by no means independent. We tried that for a while, under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work, so we wrote the Constitution.

Quote:
Judges creating instead of interpreting law is probably the most dangerous threat to our freedom that this country has ever seen.

I dunno, the Nazis and Commies were pretty dangerous.

I really don't see the threat of judges making their rulings. It's not like we couldn't make a law or constituional amendment to smite anything they've ever said. So why did the judge overturn the partial birth abortion plan? I don't remember, and I'd like to know.

Anyways, my take on all this is that no one's forcing anyone to tolerate gays, and we should let them get married or have civil unions. But lot's of people feel differently, and they can decide in their states. But I sure wouldn't like gay people to be married in my church. We have enough weddings as it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:09 PM

TERAPH

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Second, there has been an increasing number of Left-wing judges opting to legislative law from the bench.

I suspect many of the people claiming that judges are legislating from the bench would not say that if a judge overturned a law they didn't like.

Quote:
Already it is possible for a single judge to autocratically dictate law powerful enough to overturn law legislated in congress.

That's the job of judges. Congress has the power to pass laws, but those laws cannot violate the Constitution. If they do, then it is the job of the judge to overturn that law.

Quote:
This means that in our “free” nation we have appointed dictators who are able to overturn the will of elected representatives of the people on specific issues.

Dictators? Their role is defined by Constitution and law. The fact that people don't like the results of that role doesn't make them dictators.

Quote:
I have not read any proposed amendment for the Defense of Marriage Act, so I do not know what is currently in the works. After I have had an opportunity to read a proposition on the issue, I may decide whether I will continue to support this act.

Here's the text of the Constitutional Amendment that actually had a Senate vote in July:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The "legal incidents thereof" sentence was heavily debated, since it means gays couldn't have civil unions either.

(A tangent: Virginia has gone a step further, and their law can be interpreted in such a way to deny gays not only marriage, but also contract rights, as this American Bar Association article notes:

http://www.abanet.org/journal/redesign/jy16nonmarry.html

The fact that the Attorney General says it won't be used in that fashion, really just means they don't intend to do so. Someone else may come along and decide it should be used in that fashion.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:31 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
I suspect many of the people claiming that judges are legislating from the bench would not say that if a judge overturned a law they didn't like.

I suspect, you may be right. That does not however, justify, judges dictating law. This problem seems to reside primarily with Left-Wing judges particularly in the 9th circuit, which is why many Liberals seem to have no problem with it. I suspect that if a Right-Wing judge decides to autocratically deny the will of the people, many Liberals will suddenly become very aware of autocratic judges.

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
That's the job of judges. Congress has the power to pass laws, but those laws cannot violate the Constitution. If they do, then it is the job of the judge to overturn that law.

It is not, however, the job of judges to overturn a law based on that judges ideology.

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Dictators? Their role is defined by Constitution and law. The fact that people don't like the results of that role doesn't make them dictators.

True. It is the fact that they autocratically impose their ideology on the people, by overturning laws based, not on legal merit, but on their ideological views, that makes them dictators.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:08 AM

Quote:
I recognize that I am a strident militant on this issue, therefore I will excuse myself from any further discussions in this vein.

You're committed to your position, but you seem too rational to qualify as a "strident militant". I tend to stay out of such discussions myself for reasons noted at the end of this post (especially when they are this tangential to the topic), but it's hard to let statements like that just slip by.

Quote:
Well, when that one other "person" can breathe for themselves, then they can have an opinion.

Can or does? Just out of curiosity.

Quote:
If you're refering to a man - when he's birthing it, then it's his decision.

Although it disturbs me to see procreation regarded as labor that's being divvied up unfairly, I was referring the the child - I'd consider his or her stake more pressing.

Quote:
My one parting point - nobody's "pro-abortion."

Very few people anyway. Hey, every side of every issue has its kooks and they rarely do either side any good.

Quote:
What's being said is - person X should be able to make that CHOICE for herself.

That is what you're saying. I'm saying I'm not sure she has the moral right to make that choice for her baby. Frankly, I'm a bit iffy on whether I think she should have the legal right in all cases. The problem isn't that we disagree on an issue - but that we don't agree on what the issue is. Both sides try to shoehorn the other into thier way of seeing things (pro-abortion vs anti-choice), but it just isn't reality.

Let's just say that it's too easy for me to imagine that, had my mother been a different person in her same situation, I might not be here. I'll admit that I'm not the the most brilliant, lovable guy most folks will ever meet. But I am kinda glad I wasn't "terminated" before my lungs had an opportunity to develop. I think there might be at least one or two other folks out there who share that opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:24 AM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:
Originally posted by embers:

no true conservative would want to rewrite the constitution....

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to Amend the Constitution.

Lincoln was a Republican, he was not a conservative, the conservatives of that era were in favor of state's rights...and against Lincoln's amendment to the constitution...

in fact until the advent of the Religious Right one of the halmarks of all conservatives was the resistance to change and upholding the status quo.

Personally I do agree that there are occassions when amendments to the constitution ARE a good thing. I don't agree with trying to institute religion into the constitution, and I don't agree with trying to further marginalize gays... but I agree that there have been many times when amendments were good (but I don't pretend to be a conservative).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:19 AM

Quote:
Well, when that one other "person" can breathe for themselves, then they can have an opinion.

All those poor people are respirators.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:
knibblet:
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.

It's not really private. Someone's got to perform the ceremony for you.

Why?

Quote:
Likewise, you gotta tell your family if you expect any gifts.

What do gifts have to do with marriage?

Quote:
The government has to say who can marry and who can't because they're the ones who give you the tax modifications.

They have to recognize the marriage if it's going to effect taxes... I don't really understand why it does anyway...

Quote:
A government-sanctioned marriage or civil union, affects child custody,

But should it?

Quote:
inheritance,

But should it? A formal last will & testiment would become even more important, but this doesn't have to be true.

Quote:
hospital visits,

This isn't as true in all cases as it once was. It seems like a lousy way to things anyway...

Quote:
The government is the thing keeping us from being able to marry a minor or a sibling or a sheep.

Children and Sheep can't enter into legal contracts. Having sex with either is generally illegal already. I don't see how government control of marriage really changes this. Is it illegal to have sex with an adult sibling? I honestly don't know, but I really don't see what difference it makes to the government whether they are married or not.

Quote:
On NPR they suggested the "civil unions for everyone" solution, but I remember there was a key flaw in that plan.

I'm kinda curious myself. Was it that neither side of the argument would be satisfied by that?

Quote:
The church has a say in weddings because they're the ones letting you use the church. And if you get married in a courthouse, they can excommunicate you and ban you from entering.

Are there still churches that do that? Most don't.

Quote:

Posted by Beowulf:
Quote:

More laws are rarely the best path to more freedom.

If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

I disagree with the first sentence. How else could we have banned slavery without an amendment banning it? Likewise, women couldn't vote without another law.

I did say rarely. In fact women's suffrage could have been accomplished by reforming state laws if not for the fourteenth ammendment. If I recall correctly Wyoming granted voting rights to women - I don't know if their laws were ever challened over possible conflict with the 14th ammendment, which doesn't forbid women from voting, but does specifically protect only the rights of men to vote. Slavery also could have been outlawed by the states after 1808. I'm not suggesting that I oppose the 19th or 13th amendments - or even that I don't think they were the right solution - just that they weren't necessarily the only way to go about it.

Quote:
And while state laws could be individually repealed, it'd take a heck of a long time. Missouri certainly won't legalize gay marriage anytime soon.

I'm not suggesting that sweeping, state-level reform would be quick or easy. Simply that it's an opportunity to question our reliance on government control.

Quote:
Quote:
Judges creating instead of interpreting law is probably the most dangerous threat to our freedom that this country has ever seen.

I dunno, the Nazis and Commies were pretty dangerous. I really don't see the threat of judges making their rulings. It's not like we couldn't make a law or constituional amendment to smite anything they've ever said. So why did the judge overturn the partial birth abortion plan? I don't remember, and I'd like to know.

Roe v. Wade established precident that women do have the constitutional right to abort. The judge found that a law against this particular procedure violates that right.

Quote:
Anyways, my take on all this is that no one's forcing anyone to tolerate gays

But that's actually the crux of Funn Mac Cumhal's federalist argument. The full faith and credit clause of the constitution does force states to accept marriages performed in other states. the defense of marriage act was an attempt (a clearly unconstituional attempt IMO, BTW - not one that should take a whacko activist judge to strike it down) to make an exception.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:42 AM

RADHIL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It is not, however, the job of judges to overturn a law based on that judges ideology.

When someone eliminates the need for interpretation from law, then you can make a case for eliminating ideology.

Quote:
True. It is the fact that they autocratically impose their ideology on the people, by overturning laws based, not on legal merit, but on their ideological views, that makes them dictators.

Congress and the President have no restrictions separating their ideologies from their work. In fact, it's the primary method of their appointment. So I fail to see why the judiciary suddenly needs this restriction.

And as I can see it coming... before you set up the arguement that federal judges aren't elected, I'll remind you that they're selected by Congress and the President, who are. So that complaint doesn't wash either.

Your arguement loses a lot of weight when you keep throwing around the anonymous "they"s. There are select judges who have taken action in this. The legality of their actions is debatable - particularly the Massachusetts judge, who I think overstepped his bounds in ordering the legislature to pass a law, rather than simply ordering that the marriage could take place - but ordering a call for the heads of all judges makes this kinda laughable. You don't gut or limit the power of the Presidency simply because you don't like what the guy in office is doing at the moment - as I hear some members of Congress are now trying to do to the judges who would overturn any marriage law, by forcing them to legally not be able to hear the cases. Why you would do so to the judges based on political loudness is beyond me.

It's kinda ridiculous - there are overrides and balances written into the entire federal system, all three branches, from appeals to amendments to vetos to overrides, and we have a bunch of kooks trying to get around them. Simply because they can't get enough support to do it the "right" way, and they can't tolerate any other arguements other than their own. Is it really any wonder this country is FUBAR?

EDIT - And to actually be on topic -

Quote:
Originally posted by SgtGump:
I have heard the argument that gays will ruin the 'Sanctity' of marriage, but I can't help wondering what the strait community has done for that 'Sanctity' lately.

Truer words never spoken, and pretty much sums up my entire thoughts.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:15 AM

Whether or not marriage is a private act or a communal one is a fundamental question to consider.

A person is joining their spouse's family and vice-versa. This extends past the two individuals unless they were both disowned.

Not all, but (seems to me) most people feel the need to declare to the community at large, "this is my spouse". That is why we have engagment and marriage notices, engagement and wedding rings, receptions, 'just married' on the back of the vehicle, etc.

I am pretty sure you have to have a witness as well as someone to perform the ceremony. Legal and traditional reasons aside, it is an oath, being given not only to your spouse but also to the community. And yes like most traditional things it means different things to different people. [Is my sister's husband my brother-in-law or just my sister's husband?]

Marriage has to be more than 'going steady' or 'exclusive boy/girl-friend' or it wouldn't really be necessary.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:33 AM