Constitutional Amendment -- Really?

[Deuce 1]

Quote

What people do with regards to their family life has nothing to do with me. I don't care who people want to marry and raise children with, as long as the children are treated well. beyond that, frankly, I have enough to worry about in my own life. what goes on in other people's bedrooms matters not.

I agree with this completely. However, there are some issues that I want to present to my children and not have the State do it.

About 45% of my California tax dollars go to education, and that money is lost to me because I have my kids in Catholic School. Parochial school does a better job teaching the tolerance and values that are important to my family.. Let me have some of my money back so I can choose what kind of education my kids get, which is much more important to me that what the people down the street choose to call a marriage.

[goose491 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm an old fashioned man and I strongly believe that if 2 people want to get married, one has to be male and the other female, period.

Oh! Thanks for untangling the logic of the Argument from Bigamy. I completely understand the premises and conclusions now. How could I have missed these thoughtful and intelligent connections?

Leave it to the gay guy to get pissed at a statement like that. Hehe.

I'm chiming in to say that I have nothing against homosexuality.
But I do get real hot under the collar with anyone that tells me I do because I'm against homosexual marriage.

Two different things.

Bigamy? Now that's a third. And I don't see how it applies to "Should homosexuals be allowed to wed?"

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I'm an old fashioned man and I strongly believe that if 2 people want to get married, one has to be male and the other female, period.

I'm an old fashioned guy and think that people should get married for love, not for sex. How their sex parts fit together shouldn't make a difference.

So that means that you would advocate the marriage of a father and a daughter as well as a father and his son.

NAMBLA comes to mind as well.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Nightingale 0]

I don't think anyone would argue that the love between partners is different than the love between a parent and child. Statements like that make your overall position weaker.

[PhillyKev 0]

Who said anything about incest or pedophilia? I'm talking about consenting adults who don't already have a familial relationship.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Who said anything about incest or pedophilia? I'm talking about consenting adults who don't already have a familial relationship.

Quote

I'm an old fashioned guy and think that people should get married for love, not for sex. How their sex parts fit together shouldn't make a difference.

So you admit that you have limitations and boundries dictating what you would consider "love" and what should or should not be allowed, yet you criticise others that have similar boundries, just not placed as you claim yours are. Hmmm. Pretty hypocritical.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[flyinghonu 0]

Bush is an idiot

"Excuse me while I kiss the sky..." - Jimi Hendrix

[goose491 0]

Quote

Bush is an idiot

Insightful.

Though I agree with you 100% that your nations leader is an imbecile, I do support the stance he is taking on this issue.

Hey, if gays want to be together that's cool. If they want the same rights as other married couples... perhaps they should invent their own 'coupling ceremony' for 'union of two people'... then lobby the hell out of the country to obtain those rights.

Call it something else thought because 'wedding' and 'marriage' are already taken by the straights.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[narcimund 0]

So if I read you right, the only thing you object to is the shared use of the words "wedding" and "marriage"?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Zenister 0]

i'm an old fashion man and i believe fire is magic and it frightens me....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, I gotta give Bush credit for one thing - at least he didn't say that he would support legislation from Congress to ban it, since it would be a violation of "Police Powers," which are reserved to the states. The only way the feds can do it is to make a Constitutional Amendment.

One issue, though, should be brought up. People often argue about "adults" and "consent" and "if they want to, let them." I've read these arguments right here. In short, people argue in favor of contract rights - the freedom to contract.

In 1905, the Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). This decision invalidated a progressive statute designed to improve working conditions. Over the next 25 years, the Supremes would follow this decision, invalidating social engineering and validating freedom to contract. In the early 1900's, the argument of "if they want to, let them" would have held water.

During the New Deal, the Court repudiated the Lochner decision. Indeed, Lochner is reviled as judicial activism to the extreme. In legal circles, to "Lochnerize" is considered the ultimate insult to be given to a judge, i.e., finding something in the Constitution that just isn't there. Goodbye to any hopes that freedom of contract exists. "If the want to, and they are consenting adults, let them" is simply not a legally tolerable idea.

Thus, we have found that the Federal Constitution does not protect the rights of consenting adults to do what they want, i.e., prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. Any argument about "consenting adults" and "if they want to, let them" ignores the realities as given to us by the days of FDR.

Gay marriage is - currently - a matter for the states, unless an amendment to the federal Constitution is created regarding gay marriage. Frankly, I'd like to see freedom of contract applied to marriages. Vermont seems to do it (though I don't believe the other states are required to give the marriages full faith and credit). They can. A state may provide more rights than the federal government, but not less.

Too bad social engineering takes precedence over personal rights, isn't it? Let us give our thanks to government benefits for creating such government costs, and leaving it to the states to decide whether gays can be married or not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[flyinghonu 0]

Quote

Hey, if gays want to be together that's cool. If they want the same rights as other married couples... perhaps they should invent their own 'coupling ceremony' for 'union of two people'... then lobby the hell out of the country to obtain those rights.

Call it something else thought because 'wedding' and 'marriage' are already taken by the straights.

Perhaps "they" could use a little support from the "straights." I get a little blown away by the conservative views so many people have nowadays. We are living in 2003 for gods sake. With the not so wonderful things our world seems plagued with (i.e. war, terrorism, religious strife, etc., etc.) - who cares what someone's sexual preference is. If you are worried what your kids might think...wake up, they are going to be exposed to it no matter how much you try to shield them from it. One thing to remember..."gays" are people too (they are our sisters, our brothers, our mothers, our fathers, etc., etc.). And being that "gays" are people, they should be entitled to every right that everyother person is (INCLUDING MARRIAGE).

But thats just how I feel

"Excuse me while I kiss the sky..." - Jimi Hendrix

[Zenister 0]

interesting how courts can continually ignore "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"..and here i thought they were 'self evident'

i guess liberty and happiness must be rather narrowly defined for every american ..

but IMHO that is exactly what implies "providing it hurts no one elses or their rights to the same and they want to, let them"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So you admit that you have limitations and boundries dictating what you would consider "love" and what should or should not be allowed, yet you criticise others that have similar boundries, just not placed as you claim yours are. Hmmm. Pretty hypocritical.

Not hypocritical at all. The purpose of marriage is for legal standing to show a familial relationship between people that love each other. At least that's the only view the court should have of it. If you are already related, marriage is redundant, and therefore, unnecessary.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The purpose of marriage is for legal standing to show a familial relationship between people that love each other. At least that's the only view the court should have of it.

The court should only view it the way you suggest if that is the way the law is written. If the state legislature defines marriage that way, then the court should view it that way.

Odds are that no state that defines marriage that way, and since judges apply laws, your point is not valid.

Consult the state legislature on this issue, and tie the hands of the judges.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The court should only view it the way you suggest if that is the way the law is written. If the state legislature defines marriage that way, then the court should view it that way.

Odds are that no state that defines marriage that way, and since judges apply laws, your point is not valid.

The court should view it that way because that is the only constitutionally valid way to view it. To bring religious morality into the equation is unconstitutional, is it not? Isn't a law based on religious guidelines a defacto establishment of one religion over another?

[goose491 0]

Quote

So if I read you right, the only thing you object to is the shared use of the words "wedding" and "marriage"?

Well not that simply... but in a sense, yes. Let's play it like a word-game. Try and follow my train of thought objectively.

Some say: "Marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN"

Others argue this as if it's arguable.

I say: If gays are presently [I]fighting for the right to be married, then "Marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN" presently holds true as a statement.

Gays are fighting to change that statement... not disprove it.

And therein lies the problem... You cannot change the definition of the word. Not whilst there are people who are already married under certain impressions. Think of all the people who are married now. Allowing gays to wed changes the meaning of the union they are in. It alters the nature 'institution' they think they are a part of.


I would present that the number one motive that gays have to fight for this right is that married couples receive certain benefits that they don't. Well, we are giving more and more of the same benefits to 'common law' couples and 'same sex partner' that meet the requirements needed to be cosidered such (Here in Canada, it means you've resided together for 3 years or more, or one year if you have a child) so that's a start. (BTW, I think it's stupid that married couples get certain benefits that single people don't anyway)

Another reason gays wan't to be wed, is simply because they want to show their love just like everyone else does. I say equality for all! But that doesn't mean the same for all. So why not just create your own union? Why not just make up your own ceremony? Continue to fight for the benefits.. you'll eventually get them... and you won't piss off the "old fashioned".

Can't get into my club? Start your own! There won't be any animosity between us. Some have looked down at me for saying this... but are gays not different from straights?


Narci, we can PM if you're at all interested. I'm not at all interested in posting my personal thoughts on homosexuality for all to see... They are too easily misconstrued.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[narcimund 0]

So let's hypothesize that the states were to create a new institution called "marriage2" which is initiated by something called a "wedding2"

Let's also imagine that the states defined it thusly: "Marriage2 is a union between two men or between two women which has exactly the same benefits and obligations as marriage."

Would that be acceptable to you?

Let's modify it slightly for a second question: What if the definition of marriage2 allowed heterosexual couples to participate in marriage2 as well? Would that change your answer?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Kramer 0]

Quote

Quote

The president also said he doesn't watch reality television, but the Bushes both watch lots of sports on television and are hoping to see the movies "Something's Gotta Give" and "Elf" over the holidays.

The man has really bad taste in movies.

No kidding!! What a horrible President.

Weren't you the one who said that you didn't think Clinton's affair was any of the public's business?? ...and you now have the balls to criticize the movies President Bush plans to see with his wife over the holidays?

Kinda sad...

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Gays are fighting to change that statement... not disprove it.

Untrue.

I love what is happening in the US. Land of the Free, well only if you comply with the religious beliefs of its leader. Sounds pretty similar to some of those countries the US is fighting. Isn't intolerance the start of extremism? Just because you can win the war, still doesn't make it right........

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No kidding!! What a horrible President.

Weren't you the one who said that you didn't think Clinton's affair was any of the public's business?? ...and you now have the balls to criticize the movies President Bush plans to see with his wife over the holidays?

Kinda sad...

Not particular at you, also at some of the others who have metnioned this but:

Jesus Christ, do some of you not even recognize humour anymore? Are you guys so busy defending this guy that even tongue in cheek comments are off limits?

It is truely scary how some of you just blindly follow this guy and any negative (even such obvious joking comments) are off limits.

[lawrocket 3]

The only Constitutionally valid way to view the law is to point to the section of the Constitution that supports your view.

My view on it? I view Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution to limit Congressional powrs over the states in terms of proscribing the powers over things like marriage. The court, in U.S. v. Knight 156 U.S. 11, seems to agree, when it stated, "It cannot be denied that the power of the state to protect the lives, health and property of its citizens and to preserve good order and the public morals, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion, is a power originally and always belonging to the state, not surrendered to the general Government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive."

What this means is that the federal government, under the Constitution, has no say over marriage, except on federal lands. This is why Bush said he would support a Constitutional Amendment re: same. Even Bush knows that the Constitution doesn't say much regarding it.

Now, there may be arguments for equal protection under the laws. However, the judge construes the STATUTE in light of the Constitutional constraints. I did a quick search, and didn't find "love" anywhere in it...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kramer 0]

I have three exams today...so I'm in a pretty serious mood, so maybe I didn't get the joke.

And (I realize your post wasn't directed entirely at me), but I would like to say that I have never "Blindly followed George Bush". I do not consider myself to be a Republican, a Democrat, or anything for that matter. I think labeling yourself with a political party, just sets yourself up to blindly follow that party. With that being said, I do like President Bush, and I do wish for him to be re-elected...but never have I blindly followed the man. I challenge his views just as often as I agree with him (ie: I do not think Saddam Hussein should be put to death...Bush does).

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[quade 4]

Quote

No kidding!! What a horrible President.

Weren't you the one who said that you didn't think Clinton's affair was any of the public's business?? ...and you now have the balls to criticize the movies President Bush plans to see with his wife over the holidays?

Get a grip.

The last bit about him having bad taste in movies was what most people would call a joke.

As for what goes on behind closed doors . . . nothing I've said in this thread contradicts that.

It's the people's business and not the government's.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,107]

>Wow!!, you just OKed Bubba and Mary Jo's marriage . .

Uh, no, no one's talking about marriage. They're talking about civil union, a legal (i.e. state-supported) arrangement where certain things are held in common. Whether there is a church wedding involved, or kids involved, is entirely up to the people involved.

Here's a news break for you - if Bubba and Mary Jo have sex, they might conceive a child even if they're not married! Shocking, I know. But believe it or not, people been having sex whether they've been married or not for, oh, about 400,000 years now. Even, sometimes, when they are cousins. And prohibiting civil unions will do absolutely nothing to stop that.