Bush To Push For Constitutional Ban On Gay Marriage

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
So they want to write a law that discriminates
into a Constitution that forbids discrimination ?

Maybe in amendments to the constitution, but not in the constitution. And amendments don't mention sexual orientation.

WTF? If you amend the consitution, you are including it in the constitution. Any way you want to dance around the issue, it still boils down to discrimination.

Heil Bush!!!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Has nothing to do with dancing around the issue. Just stating facts. Which you have trouble with.

And again, the amendment on discrimination says nothing about sexual orientation. By inclusion, other forms of discrimination are constitutional.

All right sunshine. You tell me then...do you think we really need to amend the US Constitution for something like who can get married and who can't?

If you can't see that any such amendment clearly goes directly against everything the original document intended, then I feel sorry for you.

Is this really so important an issue facing our country that we need to resort to such drastic measures?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: alchemize

Has nothing to do with dancing around the issue. Just stating facts. Which you have trouble with.

And again, the amendment on discrimination says nothing about sexual orientation. By inclusion, other forms of discrimination are constitutional.

All right sunshine. You tell me then...do you think we really need to amend the US Constitution for something like who can get married and who can't?

If you can't see that any such amendment clearly goes directly against everything the original document intended, then I feel sorry for you.

Is this really so important an issue facing our country that we need to resort to such drastic measures?

OK Daisy. No I don't think we need to amend the US constitution. However, if the amendment passes, and you don't recognize that as completely legal and fair, then I feel sorry for you.

No, it isn't such an important issue. It is one of the silly polarizing issues that only mean something to fractional portions of the population.

 

[tec699]

Hey I have an Idea...

GOVERNMENT AND BUSH STAY THE F*CK OUT OUR LIVES!!

If a gay couple wants to get married then so what? They have to make that decission, not the US government.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

A law banning gay marriages probably would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. a constitutional amendment though is constitutional. I only have a problem with judges thinking they can redefine what marriage is. it is not possible for 2 men to be married since they are two men and no judge can convince me that any legal status given them by the judges means they are married. Theyre not married no matter what the law says only a man and woman can be married.It is not the goverments place to redefine marriage. 2 men cannot marry eachother I dont give a crap what you or any judge says.Its impossible and cannot happen. You might as well tell me that you are marrying a basketball because it is just as funny .

 

[juiio]

Originally posted by: Encryptic
Can we vote for impeachment, please?

[Inigo]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [/inigo]

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's absolutely disgusting that the US is still discriminating against homosexuals.

 

[CaptnKirk]

This countries history is discrimination and banning what others want.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
This countries history is discrimination and banning what others want.

Yup, just us. Why I can't think of any other countries where gay marriage is illegal off the top of my head.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
A law banning gay marriages probably would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. a constitutional amendment though is constitutional. I only have a problem with judges thinking they can redefine what marriage is. it is not possible for 2 men to be married since they are two men and no judge can convince me that any legal status given them by the judges means they are married. Theyre not married no matter what the law says only a man and woman can be married.It is not the goverments place to redefine marriage. 2 men cannot marry eachother I dont give a crap what you or any judge says.Its impossible and cannot happen. You might as well tell me that you are marrying a basketball because it is just as funny .

Nothing like air tight bigotry. I think it, therefore it's true.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
A law banning gay marriages probably would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. a constitutional amendment though is constitutional. I only have a problem with judges thinking they can redefine what marriage is. it is not possible for 2 men to be married since they are two men and no judge can convince me that any legal status given them by the judges means they are married. Theyre not married no matter what the law says only a man and woman can be married.It is not the goverments place to redefine marriage. 2 men cannot marry eachother I dont give a crap what you or any judge says.Its impossible and cannot happen. You might as well tell me that you are marrying a basketball because it is just as funny .

Bugs,
Where is it stated in law that 'marriage' must be limited to a man and a woman? In that place it would not be permissible but, failing finding that place it can and should permissible for two adult persons to marry. Why should the rights associated with 'next of kin' be limited to the spouse only if he or she is of the opposite sex. Sex of the partners has not to do with those rights and should be protected under the 14th Amendment's 'Equal Clause'. Basketballs don't vote!
You choose to infer that the absence of stated permissibility trumps ability and I think that only that which is stated as a limitation is a right given up all else is held to the people.

 

[Gaard]

Amending the constitution for the purpose of discriminating.

Bush needs to go.

Isn't this pushing one's ideals on others? Seperation and all that...

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
So they want to write a law that discriminates
into a Constitution that forbids discrimination ?

Well...duh! Makes sense doesn't it? The sanctity of marriage is at stake!!! We must act NOW!!

Maybe afterwards, Bush can push for an amendment to make adultery illegal. Adultery destroys the sanctity of marriage.

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
A law banning gay marriages probably would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. a constitutional amendment though is constitutional. I only have a problem with judges thinking they can redefine what marriage is. it is not possible for 2 men to be married since they are two men and no judge can convince me that any legal status given them by the judges means they are married. Theyre not married no matter what the law says only a man and woman can be married.It is not the goverments place to redefine marriage. 2 men cannot marry eachother I dont give a crap what you or any judge says.Its impossible and cannot happen. You might as well tell me that you are marrying a basketball because it is just as funny .

Bugs,
Where is it stated in law that 'marriage' must be limited to a man and a woman? In that place it would not be permissible but, failing finding that place it can and should permissible for two adult persons to marry. Why should the rights associated with 'next of kin' be limited to the spouse only if he or she is of the opposite sex. Sex of the partners has not to do with those rights and should be protected under the 14th Amendment's 'Equal Clause'. Basketballs don't vote!
You choose to infer that the absence of stated permissibility trumps ability and I think that only that which is stated as a limitation is a right given up all else is held to the people.

Marriage is defined in Title 1, Section 7 of the United States Code.

Marriage Defined

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
A law banning gay marriages probably would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. a constitutional amendment though is constitutional. I only have a problem with judges thinking they can redefine what marriage is. it is not possible for 2 men to be married since they are two men and no judge can convince me that any legal status given them by the judges means they are married. Theyre not married no matter what the law says only a man and woman can be married.It is not the goverments place to redefine marriage. 2 men cannot marry eachother I dont give a crap what you or any judge says.Its impossible and cannot happen. You might as well tell me that you are marrying a basketball because it is just as funny .

Bugs,
Where is it stated in law that 'marriage' must be limited to a man and a woman? In that place it would not be permissible but, failing finding that place it can and should permissible for two adult persons to marry. Why should the rights associated with 'next of kin' be limited to the spouse only if he or she is of the opposite sex. Sex of the partners has not to do with those rights and should be protected under the 14th Amendment's 'Equal Clause'. Basketballs don't vote!
You choose to infer that the absence of stated permissibility trumps ability and I think that only that which is stated as a limitation is a right given up all else is held to the people.

Marriage is defined in Title 1, Section 7 of the United States Code.

Marriage Defined

Thank you.. but, I write somewhat specifically in this case. On federal reservations and maybe the District of Columbia the folks live in States.. In those states that do not permit it, fine and in those that do, fine.. I do have an issue with the 'full faith and credit' that 'forces' states to abide by the law of another state... being mooted by the law that defines for federal purposes 'marriage'. It is also ex post facto regarding the unstated 200 year history of the term.. from '96 back.. Not to mention the survivor benefit issue for federal purposes.. This is not directly 14th Amendment issue but will become such.. I think..

 

[BugsBunny1078]

One day science will cure homosexuality and then this will all be a non-issue.

 

[bozack]

funny how everyone is quick to jump on Bush (Hey Moonie) yet the current Democrazy poster boy Kerry is spouting the same message more or less, nothing about an ammendment, but he is pretty vocal about his not supporting homosexual "marriage" but does see civil unions being a viable option....

as I have said time and time again, get *Marriage* out of the government, all instances of the word for everyone should be replaced with union, let the religious factions have their *marriage* and let everyone else get a union...it only makes sense.

Also don't think this is only motivated by the religious backers but remember that insurance also has a big role to play in this, as if this goes through insurance companies and places of employment will have to start providing insurance for a whole demographic that payed their own way, which will ultimately translate into higher costs for everyone, initially insurance companies will loose money but you can bet they will make it back in no time.... and don't even start with examples of companies that give significant other benes now, in Taxachussets they are few and far between, one of my friends who is gay just went through the process of trying to find a place that offered partner benes and he came up with a list of a whopping three major companies in the state (TJX was one and the other two I cannot remember)....so anyone that trys to tell you that *tons* of companies offer partner benes is pulling it out of their rear.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
One day science will cure homosexuality and then this will all be a non-issue.

Science can cure alot of things or might be able to cure things in the future does that mean a person with cancer shouldn't be able to marry the person he or she chooses because one day science will cure cancer so there is no need to be happy now?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
One day science will cure homosexuality and then this will all be a non-issue.

We'll all become women? Hehehe Not bad.. then we could have bad days and have good cause.. living with a woman..

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
So they want to write a law that discriminates
into a Constitution that forbids discrimination ?

Maybe in amendments to the constitution, but not in the constitution. And amendments don't mention sexual orientation.

WTF? If you amend the consitution, you are including it in the constitution. Any way you want to dance around the issue, it still boils down to discrimination.

Has nothing to do with dancing around the issue. Just stating facts. Which you have trouble with.

And again, the amendment on discrimination says nothing about sexual orientation. By inclusion, other forms of discrimination are constitutional.

By your logic, it'd be legal and fair if 60 years ago a constitutional amendment had been agreed on to deny blacks citizenship. If the majority of the country didn't wan't women to vote, would that make constitutional discrimination A-ok?

And why are you so adament about this defence of marrage? Homosexuals aren't making an offense on marriage are they? They aren't turning our country upside down, they aren't aiming bazookas at the white house, they aren't flying planes into skyscapers so why the hell should you care what they can and can't do?

You aren't afraid they're gonna 'recruit' ya, huh? huh?

 

[Mursilis]

So I'm just guessing that everyone here also supports marriages of more than 2 people? After all, if the state can't limit it to just a man and a woman, then it can't limit it to just two people, no?

 

[Dari]

This is a dumb idea. It incredibly unfair to gays. These people didn't choose to live this way. They were born like this. Terrible idea.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
So I'm just guessing that everyone here also supports marriages of more than 2 people? After all, if the state can't limit it to just a man and a woman, then it can't limit it to just two people, no?

Well the Catholic Church, I think, says that if you're married in the Church and get a legal divorce and get remarried in the protestant church that you're still married to the first one church wise...

 

[Moonbeam]

Dari doesn't crawl out from under his rock without wearing a butt protector.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Mursilis
So I'm just guessing that everyone here also supports marriages of more than 2 people? After all, if the state can't limit it to just a man and a woman, then it can't limit it to just two people, no?

Well the Catholic Church, I think, says that if you're married in the Church and get a legal divorce and get remarried in the protestant church that you're still married to the first one church wise...

yes and no...in the catholic church you can only be married once unless you get an annulment....so using your argument no you are not technically considered still married by the church, instead you broke their policy and now cannot be married again by them.