Poll: Would you support an amendment to ban gay marriages?

[Martin]

Re: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1077623093721&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

President George W. Bush waded into a contentious U.S. election-year issue today, saying he'll back a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriages.

 

[samgau]

No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....

 

[notfred]

I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[hevnsnt]

Originally posted by: samgau
No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The question is wrong.

CkG

 

[Nitemare]

I'd support an amendment that banned morons for running for office

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The question is wrong.

CkG

What's wrong with it?

 

[Thraxen]

No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....

So would you support polygamy as well? The issue goes beyond the religious realms, though many people only see that side.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....

So would you support polygamy as well? The issue goes beyond the religious realms, though many people only see that side.

I wouldn't go far as to say I support polygamy, but if all parties involved are OK with it, then it's up to them who they live with/have sex with/have kids with/whatever. It's not my place to tell them how to lives their own lives unless they're affecting other people.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....

So would you support polygamy as well? The issue goes beyond the religious realms, though many people only see that side.

What's wrong with polygamy if they all agree to it? The only thing I can see wrong with it is that people can abuse it to get economical benefits to people they know. If we restrict those benefits to the first wife, then I see no problem in it.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Actually it doesnt, because other parts of the constitution gives the federal govt the power to regulate interstate commerce, and with past Supreme Court rulings, thats a wide spectrum, which would include gay marriage. Then you also have the part about citizens of one state, are entitled to privleges and immunities of several states...

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Obviously, you haven't heard of a little something called the supremecy clause, which all but negates that amendment.

 

[Yax]

And what's a valid argument to banning Gay marriages?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I agree. No need to amend discrimination onto the Constitution, let it stay on a state-by-state basis.

 

[CraigRT]

no, i couldn't care less what people do with their lives.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
And what's a valid argument to banning Gay marriages?

 

[Lyfer]

As long as people aren't protesting to allow them to marry there dogs/cats, gay marriages are OK (as long as they keep there distance).

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I agree. No need to amend discrimination onto the Constitution, let it stay on a state-by-state basis.

1. Thats not what gays want.
2. It would end up being ruled unconstitutional for various reasons.

At this point its ALL or NOT AT ALL. The only way to prevent gay marriage is a constitutional amendment, which will ultimately fail.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
And what's a valid argument to banning Gay marriages?

There isnt one.

 

[Thraxen]

I wouldn't go far as to say I support polygamy, but if all parties involved are OK with it, then it's up to them who they live with/have sex with/have kids with/whatever. It's not my place to tell them how to lives their own lives unless they're affecting other people.

I have no problem with it from that aspect, but I'm talking about from a legal standpoint. We already have the institution of marriage as is. The same-sex marriage issue possibly opens doors for other things like polygamy. So I'm curious how far people are willing to expand the institution of marriage. IMO, I just say leave it as is... but I have no problems with gay couples living together.

 

[SaintGRW]

I'd sign my name to something saying to not allow gay marriages...

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
And what's a valid argument to banning Gay marriages?

My thinking exactly. To preserve the definition of marriage to be only between a man and a woman? B.S. Can can the US claim to support democracy and free speech when they use law to say who can marry and who can't?

I'm glad I'm Canadian.

 

[ucdbiendog]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I'd support an amendment that banned morons for running for office

amen. but back on topic, i dont agree with the gay thing, i dont want other guys hitting on me, but, i have no problem letting them do their thing and getting the same benefits a straight married couple gets. stupid republicans

 

[Aves]

No.

 

[RU482]

Define the purpose of a marriage