POLL: Constittional Amendment to outlaw Gay Marriages?

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
[
Do a news search. Santorum predicted that overturning sodomy laws would lead to the downfall of western society and we'd all be humping goats in the street by the end of the year.

Hee, I love how the United States equates itself constantly with Western Civilization. Of course we can accuse Britian of doing it in the 1800s, so it's only natural someone else has a turn.

Sodomy laws had been overturned up here last generation and suddenly, nothing happened. Last I checked, fornication with our four-legged friends was still quite illegal and not liable to change soon. Though, I don't know, maybe making it with a goat is the way people celebrate that sort of thing in the US. It's an odd country you have there at any rate.

-- Jack

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.
-- Voltaire

 

[Mister T]

this is a state issue not a federal issue

 

[Tripleshot]

I do not believe same sex "marriage" is a good idea, but that given, I believe "same sex unions" should have the same rights and protections under color of law as that of any other recognized "union" , speciffically the "union of man and woman in Holy Matrimony".

I believe government should not be in the business of foisting moral values on the public at large based solely on the whim of the current administration and political group in control of law making at the time. If thereis any constitutional scrutiny of this, then outlawing "outlawing" of same sex marriage should be the law of the land.

And no, that is not hipcracy. That is understanding and compassion.



Get over it!:beer:

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: americangigolo
Fvck no

Government has no right telling a man he can't marry another man or telling a woman she can't marry another woman. Stay the hell out of people's personal lives.

 

[Medea]

Now I may be missing something here, but you can't pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing something which is currently not legal. There are no states that recognize a gay marriage equal to that of a heterosexual marriage. There are sodomy laws which have been overturned as unconstitutional when the same occurs between consenting adults. Gay marriages, however, are a totally different issue.

 

[glenn1]

The federal government should stay out of issues related to marriage. These issues belong at the State level.

It shouldn't even belong at the state level. "Marriage" is a religious concept, and the state should have nothing to do with it, to either sanction, prohibit, or define what marriage is as an action recognized by the community. If your church agrees to marry you, then you should be able to be married. If your church doesn't agree to marry you, the state has no business stepping in and doing it. Would you have a Justice of the Peace perform a bar mitzvah for you if your synagogue wouldn't? Or give you communion if your pastor wouldn't? So why should the JP perform a marriage?

 

[colonel]

Government has no right telling a man he can't marry another man or telling a woman she can't marry another woman. Stay the hell out of people's personal lives.

I agree 100% , but about if the couple want to adopt a child, someone has to speak for the child, in this case the Government.:brokenheart:

 

[JellyBaby]

I believe government should not be in the business of foisting moral values on the public at large based solely on the whim of the current administration and political group in control of law making at the time.

Aren't you in favor of gun control though?

It shouldn't even belong at the state level. "Marriage" is a religious concept, and the state should have nothing to do with it, to either sanction, prohibit, or define what marriage is as an action recognized by the community.

Pretty much agree. But in nature, do animals who mate for life seek the marriage blessing from their church? Of course not. They go right to the source. Actually they don't even need to take expliclit action because the union is natural, self-evident and inalienable.

 

[colonel]

But in nature, do animals who mate for life seek the marriage blessing from their church? Of course not. They go right to the source. Actually they don't even need to take expliclit action because the union is natural,

well I dont know any animal doing the male-male or female-female who mate for life, is only gays humans against nature.

 

[JellyBaby]

well I dont know any animal doing the male-male or female-female who mate for life

The natural order of things causes opposite sex beings to mate to reproduce. Same sex beings can't reproduce. Yet nature appears to have created same sex beings who seek each other's company and this is evidenced in the animal kingdom though it's not common.

The act of mating and the institution of marriage are different beasts. One is a construct of god/natural law, the other of man (conscience beings aware of liberty). Marriage is largely ceremonial, a wrapper over something more basic and profound. Beasts don't get married. Humans, however, do. They excerise their capacity to reason to determine marriage is needed/desired. Why?

Basically what I'm after is an answer to why a gay marriage is wrong? I know the state of being gay is uncommon and flies in the face of reproduction but where I used to believe it was also unnatural, I know begin to wonder, since there appears to be a genetic consquence to the thing.

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: colonel
[well I dont know any animal doing the male-male or female-female who mate for life, is only gays humans against nature.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction either. Many people reproduct and don't get married. And many people get married and don't reproduce. They are two separate things. If two men or two women want to get married, that just means they love each other and want to make it official and spend the rest of their life together.

Why should we take away the civil liberties and rights of someone because they arre attracted to someone of the same sex?

 

[JellyBaby]

Why should we take away the civil liberties and rights of someone because they arre attracted to someone of the same sex?

I think it's a fear of an uncertain future where we end up with co-ed bathrooms, public orgies and a bunch of other social conditions that lead to reduced productivity. Rome peaked and fell rather quickly when they set their minds to it....but they did manage to first give the Judeans the aquaduct...so it wasn't all bad I guess.

 

[Tripleshot]

Aren't you in favor of gun control though?

I'm in favor of the status quo. I believe in the right to bear arms(for a state militia). I believe it is a privilage, not a right. I believe a means test should be involved in that privalage being used. I believe automatic weapons and bazookas are not justifiable as personal weapons or for use in game hunting. I believe felons loose the privalage to own or use a weapon,bunder a severe penalty of incarceration.

Now, pray tell, what the hell does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[Ylen13]

As some people have mention hear the amendment will never pass, I don't see any new amendment to our constitution for a long time unless something dramatic happens that requires it and this is one of those situation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thisa has nothing to do with gay marriage. This is a wedge issue the Republicans will use to milk their nut case fringe for money and votes. As long as the atheist neocons have to camp out with the looney tunes they may as well fleece them and make a profit.

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm in favor of the status quo. I believe in the right to bear arms(for a state militia). I believe it is a privilage, not a right. I believe a means test should be involved in that privalage being used. I believe automatic weapons and bazookas are not justifiable as personal weapons or for use in game hunting. I believe felons loose the privalage to own or use a weapon,bunder a severe penalty of incarceration.

Now, pray tell, what the hell does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

The pertinent amendment guarantees the right to bear arms (an extension of the basic right of self-defense) to individuals, not militias. You have to twist the meaning of that amendment to construe it otherwise. Rights apply to people, not organizations so it can't by definition apply to an entity namely a "milita" in this case. Automatic weapons and RPGs are not usually needed to defend one's self but you can't say for sure that will always be the case. These may become necessary under extreme circumstances, otherwise I agree with ya.

I was simply wondering if you favored gun control in the same flavor as many favor banning gay marriage -- by whim, by taste, by moral value.

 

[zantac]

The Constitution is meant to expand freedoms not limit them. I am against any amendments to the Constitution other than the ERA.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior

Originally posted by: colonel
[well I dont know any animal doing the male-male or female-female who mate for life, is only gays humans against nature.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction either. Many people reproduct and don't get married. And many people get married and don't reproduce. They are two separate things. If two men or two women want to get married, that just means they love each other and want to make it official and spend the rest of their life together.

Why should we take away the civil liberties and rights of someone because they arre attracted to someone of the same sex?

Just to ask a question here😉 I hear the words "civil liberties" and "rights" being tossed around alot during alot of political and social debates, so my question is:
Is marriage a "right" and if so why?
Now by "right" I mean when you are born with it.
Just a question I've been mulling over for a while but have never come up with a good answer.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior

Originally posted by: colonel
[well I dont know any animal doing the male-male or female-female who mate for life, is only gays humans against nature.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction either. Many people reproduct and don't get married. And many people get married and don't reproduce. They are two separate things. If two men or two women want to get married, that just means they love each other and want to make it official and spend the rest of their life together.

Why should we take away the civil liberties and rights of someone because they arre attracted to someone of the same sex?

Just to ask a question here😉 I hear the words "civil liberties" and "rights" being tossed around alot during alot of political and social debates, so my question is:
Is marriage a "right" and if so why?
Now by "right" I mean when you are born with it.
Just a question I've been mulling over for a while but have never come up with a good answer.

CkG

It's a right, because the U.S. Supreme Court says so. The Supreme Court has often said there is a fundamental right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Is that good enough for ya? 😉

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
It is simply MIND boggling that 25 PEOPLE have seen fit to vote Change the constitution.

I am simply going to attribute it to youth and inexperience or just plain ignorance of the issue at hand.

talk about using a nuke to kill a fly.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH you hate gays, no matter HOW MUCH you don't want gays to get married, USING THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

I have yet to see any support for it at ALL except for idiots voting for it.

THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

Bush thinks so.

😛

Perhaps he is right . . . we DO need a change - of leadership - to a president that is in touch with reality.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
It is simply MIND boggling that 25 PEOPLE have seen fit to vote Change the constitution.

I am simply going to attribute it to youth and inexperience or just plain ignorance of the issue at hand.

talk about using a nuke to kill a fly.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH you hate gays, no matter HOW MUCH you don't want gays to get married, USING THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

I have yet to see any support for it at ALL except for idiots voting for it.

THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

Bush thinks so.

😛

Perhaps he is right . . . we DO need a change - of leadership - to a president that is in touch with reality.

Actually, you don't seem to understand the issue at hand. The whole "change the constitution" issue came up as a result of the supreme court ruling on the Texas case. Basically, Bush (and many others) believe that even if they pass some sort of "protection of marriage" federal law to make it the law of the land (instead of each state having to do it's own thing), that the supreme court would strike down the law as unconstitutional. The ONLY way to make sure that a court cannot invalidate a law as 'unconstitutional' is to make it part of the constitution itself.

I'm not arguing one way or the other for/against allowing gay marriages, I'm pointing out why the whole changing of the constitution came into play.

 

[Jadow]

I believe the ammendment is necessary, but it sickens me that it is. What the hell has happened to our country in the past 10 years?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior

Originally posted by: colonel
[well I dont know any animal doing the male-male or female-female who mate for life, is only gays humans against nature.

Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction either. Many people reproduct and don't get married. And many people get married and don't reproduce. They are two separate things. If two men or two women want to get married, that just means they love each other and want to make it official and spend the rest of their life together.

Why should we take away the civil liberties and rights of someone because they arre attracted to someone of the same sex?

Just to ask a question here😉 I hear the words "civil liberties" and "rights" being tossed around alot during alot of political and social debates, so my question is:
Is marriage a "right" and if so why?
Now by "right" I mean when you are born with it.
Just a question I've been mulling over for a while but have never come up with a good answer.

CkG

It's a right, because the U.S. Supreme Court says so. The Supreme Court has often said there is a fundamental right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Is that good enough for ya? 😉

Actually it was one of the reason's I've been given by others.😉 So I guess not😀

A right isn't given by the Court, a "right" is given by the constitution from what I gather. Having the courts set social guidlines based on thier view is a bad idea IMO. They are supposed to be interpreting the laws based on constitutionality, no?

Just my thoughts on the matter🙂

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's a right, because the U.S. Supreme Court says so. The Supreme Court has often said there is a fundamental right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Is that good enough for ya? 😉

Actually it was one of the reason's I've been given by others.😉 So I guess not😀

A right isn't given by the Court, a "right" is given by the constitution from what I gather. Having the courts set social guidlines based on thier view is a bad idea IMO. They are supposed to be interpreting the laws based on constitutionality, no?

Just my thoughts on the matter🙂

CkG

Wow, what does it take then? An act of God? 😉

 

[0roo0roo]

i think they should amend it to outlaw athiest and interracial marraige while they are at it because infidels piss off god, and god didn't want the races to mix.