That is an excellent analogy!

I would also add that if marriage is disallowed for same-sex couples, then we should perhaps also disallow it for infertile heterosexuals (or any heterosexual couple unable or unwilling to produce or raise children). After all, a major argument used by many FMA proponents is that marriage is primarily for raising children.

This sums up the opposition. If you don't believe marriage is a cornerstone of society, then there is no big deal in changing its definition.

If you believe marriage is primarily for raising children, then you can see where I am coming from.

I certainly disagree with statements such as:

The Constitutional Amendment process is long and arduous. It is also there for a reason: to absolutely codify the core beliefs of society.

Yes, changing it is "activist" almost by definition. I don't see how it follows as "Exploitation" if you can actually get such an Amendment passed. It certainly does not "debase" the Constitution or the amendment process.

True, and despite what I hear many saying, a very valid analogy.



I would have to take some issue here. First, the 'activist judges' accusation has been made from both sides (and, yes, probably as an intentional distraction in both cases). Second, Bush is not the one who started this issue, rather it was something to which he had to react. So, if we're going to play the blame game, let's at least direct it at the source. Which, of course, also opens up the question of who exactly is using fear and sowing division to save who's hide?


EDIT: fixed quotes

Deerjerkydave,

Wait a minute, here. You take one sentence of mine, more or less out of context, considering the paragraphs that followed, and thank me for agreeing with you? You might want to read over my post again, and actually respond to the points I made.

As far as I am concerned, the other conditions you mentioned are red herrings. Incestual relationships are already illegal, usually because of the increased possibility of genetically defective children. Polygamy, because it is generally seen as a way for men to exploit women and children under the age of consent in a "religious" context.

You fail to take into consideration, at all, my argument that marriage itself does convey certain basic rights to the spouse (property rights, for example), and that prohibiting Gays from marrying does keep them from asserting these rights.

It seems to me that these conditions do present a "bigotry" of sorts. One that is every bit as egregious as the laws passed years ago that prohibited blacks from marrying whites. If you can actually show me that this is not the case, I'm willing to change my mind. I haven't seen an argument here, though, that dispells my belief.

Sorry for jumping in late on this thread, but i want to add my piece (even though what i will say may have been said already):

I do not think this will be passed because this is too hot of an issue even if some Senators have a while to go on their current term.

The debates will go on until some think it is the right time to either support or prohibit gay marriages

This issue reminds me of the civil rights movement of the 60's from documentries on TV. The San Francisco same sex weddings thing is Rosa Park not giving her seat up on the bus of this new century.

Wow. So many opinions...let me add my 2 cents worth. First of all, I am sure if I started my thread identifying opposing opinions as "bigots", the mods would drop-kick me out of here....and rightly so.

Standard number one....and standard number two.

I love the argument of equating homosexual marriage to heterosexual couples who happen to be sterile. The lack of conception by a sterile couple stems from accidental or circumstantial reasons. The fact is their conjugal act has or had the promise of engendering new life.

Homsexual behavior does not.

Sterility is not the cause...its physiology of the act.

Or the argument that, since the divorce rate is high among heterosexuals, we might as well let everyone get married. That is where morality creeps in the argument. One doesn't justify bad behavior by siting someone else's bad behavior.

Is someone trying to actually make a rational argument that homosexual relationships are more socially stable than heterosexual marriages? Really? I know this is a pretty liberal forum, but lets not drink our own cool-aid here.

The law has every right and duty to defend moral law. Its not a rights issue. Homosexuals have to right to form business relations, trade in commerse, go to schools and live freely. Trying to extend those natural rights to the issue of a marital union that forms the building block of every society since time began, is contrary to natural law.
Thus, the State is correct in advocating behavior that is conducive to the continuation of society and enacting laws that prevent elements that impede that process.

I am sorry if that hurts the feelings of some of you in here. Morals are inbedded in the law for that reason. The fight will continue to extract morals out of the laws.

The rationale is this: if homosexual sexual behavior is considered by a large part of the population to be un-natural, allowing marriages of homosexuals only codifies that practice. It goes against natural law.

Okay.......armor is on....let me have it.

I don't think people will attack you for expressing a reasonable opinion, Grig. I do not like the word bigot, and I try not to use it (although it slips out occasionally).

I like to view homosexuality as a form of natural selection--since we humans simply give birth to three, four, five, or however many children, this grows exponentially to the point of overpopulation. Why are so many children necessary? Perhaps, then, homosexuality stems from a natural occurance which is exhibited in a small portion of the population to curb the growth of the human race. This doesn't quite work out, since many homosexual people still want to have children (I, myself, do not). But it is a feasible and logical reason for why homosexuality is so rampant. This is not a few hundred people--it is millions and millions of people. And these homosexual citizens are the offspring of heterosexual unions. If anything, we should be proud there are people who want to adopt those children who are unwanted by their biological parents. We should encourage it. Society would be better off. To say otherwise is outright ignorance played up as morality.

As a homosexual (with bisexual tendencies), I do view gay sex as an unnatural act. That said, how many acts do human beings commit which are unnatural? I could list hundreds and still not think of them all. The Declaration of Independence promises us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since no harm is done by allowing gay marriages (as has been proven in Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany), why the necessity to codify morality, prohibiting a large sect of citizens from finding happiness?

I think if your opponents were bigots it would be perfectly acceptable, and in fact it would be offensive to pussyfoot around the truth.
What else can you call someone who would use the force of law to prevent a group of people from enjoying the full rights of citizenship?
No, in fact a sterile couple has no promise of engendering new life. I am as likely to get pregnant as an 80 year old woman is, yet you would not prevent her marriage.
When someone claims to be defending something, it is only fair to examine how respectfully they themselves treat what they are defending.
And don't speak to me of morality. Morality is founded on the concept of treating others as you would wish to be treated... Would you honestly have no complaint with being prevented from marrying the person you love? Would it not anger you to have bigots compare that love to child molestation or raping a puppy?
If you think this is a liberal forum it seems someone has beaten me to the kool-aid.
Homosexual relationships don't have to be more stable than heterosexual relationships to deserve the same rights. My relationship is as stable as any on this board. Homosexual relationships don't have to be more stable than heterosexual relationships to deserve the same rights.
But it is. Marriage has been defined as a right by the supreme court of the US.
I seriously doubt you are sorry.

If you are intolerant of what others believe then you ARE a bigot. There is no name-calling involved - it's a simple definition. You believe that homosexuality does not come from "circumstantial reasons. Others believe it does. Denying them rights without reasons or evidence to prove how they are infringing on the rights of others makes you a bigot. Sorry, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.


This is inaccurate. Homosexuals can use invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and adoption.


The concept of "bad behavior" is each American's own personal opinion. Morality of the religious right do not coincide with MY morals. You can't argue that homosexuals violate the "sanctity" of something if you aren't prepared to address ALL issues of supposed sanctity.


Prove that they are not. Don't be so arrogant - as if you have statistics that prove that homosexual relationship are less socially stable. I bet you don't even know any homosexual grown ups.


The fight will continue to extract bigoted christian "morals" out of the laws - yes. I spend a large part of my income every year donating to www.au.org, whose sole purpose is to fight the religious right and to get the church (your "morals") out of the state.
We're slowly gaining ground. Don't be so shocked.

Fargo, I appreciate your point of view. I disagree fundementally, but, unlike some who spew hatred inbetween words, you are rational, coherent and I can tell, a decent guy who believes passionately about this topic.

I don't see homosexuality as natural selection. My pessimistic self, I guess, sees wars and disease as taking care of that front.

I give you an immense amount of credit to admit homosexual sex as being un-natural. That takes guts around here. Usually one just gets defensive comments about reptilian sexual habits and such.

Again, your logic is based on rationalizing a set of behavior against other behaviors that maybe wrong.

Let me leave you with this quote from Paul Varnell who wrote in the Chgo. Free press:

"The fundemental controverted issue about homosexuality is nor discrimination, hate crime or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.
Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crime law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.
On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could fully accept themselves.
So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, but a MORAL REVOLUTION aimed at changing peoples view of homosexuality."

I believe this also answers the question of what defines the "Gay Agenda"

Peace, Love and Light

People are the best judges of what is best for them. Many people make bad decisions but that's why pencils have erasers and marriages have divorce. Our country was founded on self-government and that's what should prevail here. Gay people want to be married and who am I to stop them? If I get married 10 or 15 years from now how will my marriage change because gay people will be allowed to married? I seriously doubt I will experience any pain or suffering. My morality isn't going to be effected by 2% of the population deciding to be married or not. Personally I think this issue is between two people. Do they want to be married? That's the question, not if I approve. Maybe there's something that I don’t understand in this issue. I will not be affected at all; I know that. I know that because I'm heterosexual. The state's job is to protect rights not enforce morals. Where is enforcing morals in the constitution? I have enough faith in this country that we are adults that can choose who we want to marry.
If we don't have gay marriage are gay people going to decide they're not really gay and have children? Gay people don't impede anyone having children.

It is amazing to me that 'tolerence' is now defined as acceptance. If I offer an opinion other than full acceptance of an un-natural and immoral behavior, not the person, but the behavior, then I am labeled a bigot, homophobe, hater. Even if invite them into my house, break bread and socialize with them.....I am still, by some, labeled intolerent. Amazing.

Now, because I take a moral view that is equated with rightousness, my speech is labeld 'hate speech'. When did it so far out of whack?

I tolerate your viewpoints Grendal and Perspective, and value them although I disagree with them, but you cannot accord me the same.

If you have a different set of morals, that fine. Thats between you and your maker...whoever, if any, you might have. For some reason though, that seems carte blanche to crap all over someone elses morals. Is that tolerent?

Peace, Love and Light

However, once again, the civil rights movement is our example on this movement again- there were poeple that would socialize with blacks, break bread or whatever, that were still racist, still bigoted and still wrong, and still in the majority.

You do not have to accept thier behavior, you don't have to accept that catholics might go to heaven too, that black poeple are equal, that women should vote, but to out and outright deny them the very freedoms you enjoy, that is where you truly cross the line into bigotry, homophobia, hating etc.

This is the cross roads our country is at right now, to no longer accept this, until now, acceptable form of bigotry.

Agreed!! How will hetrosexual marriage be affected by allowing Gays to be married? Very good question. IT WON'T!! Get over it and allow gays to marry people!

I think there are more important issues in this country that need to be dealt with than gay marriage. Allow it or ban it and move on.

No, you don't have to "accept" anything. You can believe whatever you want, but when you attempt to use the force of law to prevent a segment of the population from having access to rights that you take for granted you are a bigot.
There is no other word for it. It is certainly not the "conservative" view, conservatives oppose federal regulations interfering with personal freedom, and oppose the federal government telling states what they can do.

You have not answered my question about morality. Would you have others do to you as you do to homosexuals?

There are inherent problems with arguing morality that you are not addressing. Morality is, in fact, pure opinion. There is no such thing as an objective moral. Morality is, as quoted by dictionary.com:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Because what is right or good conduct is variable from person to person, laws defined using morality as their core argument are doomed to be challenged. When the morality is derived from a religious dogma, the First Amendment is violated, and the law should be repealed.

I do not label you intolerant or hateful, since you obviously show no signs of such ideals. However, when you offer up the idea of "hate the sin, love the sinner" for such a basic fundamental characteristic as sexuality, there is no such thing as loving the sinner and hating the sin. They are one and the same. It is much like someone calling a Jew "evil" because that's how they are born (and yes, I believe homosexuality is an in-born trait--at no point in my life did I decide to be gay).

Since the topic on hand is "Will the Constitutional Amendment Pass?" my question is, "Why should it?" Our Constitution has never been amended to pass a moral opinion (which is precisely what it is) onto a country. It was once amended to prohibit alcoholic consumption, only to be amended again to repeal the previous amendment. President Bush has already set an insidious precedent by instigating a war with Iraq--would he be so pompous as to presume marriage is defined by... what?

And that is the final question: who defines marriage? If God defines marriage, marriage should be removed from government altogether. If society defines marriage, then it goes without saying that the institution of marriage is a fluid, ever-changing entity, to be altered with the views of society at large. In Utah, a local newspaper recently published an editorial promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying that marriage has and should always be between a man and a woman. Yet in this very state, not but a hundred years ago, polygamy was legal and practiced readily by its constituents. Oh how soon we do forget.

Back to my original point of morality. Since morals are subjective, we can not use them as arguments. Therefore, we must turn to science. The America Academy of Pediatrics has promoted that gay couples are just as good at raising children as straight couples are. If it is to be argued that gay couples can not have children, then I ask you: should we destroy those two gay penguins in New York's zoo? These are two creatures who have no mental capacity to discern morality. They do what they do, and they have chosen to be mates for life. I normally don't compare humans with animals, but this is a rare case that exhibits a natural example of homosexuality in "God's creations".

If you can prove to me, scientifically, that gay marriage will destroy the marital institution, then by all means, I will vote for the FMA. But the only argument I have ever heard has been on a purely moral basis. I'd appreciate something with hard evidence that proves gay marriage is destructive to society. Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and several other countries have already proven that it is not. What, then, are we to believe but that gay marriage will do nothing but grant a substantial group of citizens the right to taxes, health insurance, and every other marital right? The fact that Rosie O'Donnell had to give up all the e-mails between herself and her girlfriend because the government would not recognize their union proves all the more how important civil marriage between gay couples is a necessity.

If I am correct, by the Constitution so far, all citizens of the US are created equal and guaranteed the same basic rights.
If an amendment was passed that marriage is only between a man and a woman, it would effectively be taking a portion of society and saying 'you people' do not have the basic rights afforded to all others in this country, from now on, nor ever will, unless the amendment is repealed in the future. It would henceforth be the ONLY existing case that supports legal discrimination of a certain sector of the citizenry by Constitutional amendment. There are no others. That should give a clue that something is amiss in the thinking. Is it justified to do that to a group of US citizens?

If we are talking morality, I suppose it must be mostly sexual morality?, unless someone thinks gays are just immoral beings.
The morality (and natural law) arguments are more than just flimsy since it has already been discussed that pedophiles, rapists, deviants of all types, as well as serial killers are allowed to be married. So the moral argument would seem to suggest that homosexuals are THE most immoral of all citizens in the US, enough so that THEY ALONE and barring none other, should be banned from marrying. Logically looked at, this is of course utterly ridiculous. Can anyone stand on this as a moral issue considering this viewpoint?

I don't think it will pass, and I will fervently work against the passage if it comes to that.
21st century anyone? We gone down this road several times and always struggle out from under the heavy hand of those who would discriminate for whatever reasons. Those reasons have not held up to scrutiny in the past and are not likely to in todays nation.

Just a curious question for those supporting an amendment defining marriage...

Would you be in favor of a new amendment if the majority of people decided marriage could only exist between members of the same sex? Suppose heterosexual marriages were constitutionally banned?

If this amendment were allowed to pass, there is nothing to prevent heterosexual marriages from becoming unconstitutonal. As much as I reject gay marriage, this seems even more abhorrent. This is why the majority of states would never ratify this amendment. It's simply the wrong screwdriver for this type of screw (Get it? Get it? God, I crack myself up sometimes...).

The point is that those fighting to preserve traditional marriage seem focused exclusively on denying marriage to same-sex couples.

Shouldn’t they be equally focused on outlawing divorce? Shouldn’t they also be demanding that all married couples agree to produce or adopt children, in order to fulfill marriage’s traditional purpose?

The inconsistency makes one wonder if the intent is really about preserving the “sanctity of marriage.” It seems like it's more about maintaining restrictions on gays and lesbians.


As I mentioned in an earlier post, my vote on whether the amendment will pass is “I hope not.”

I am encouraged that there are a number of prominent conservatives opposed to the FMA:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryel...e20040226.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgew...w20031201.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgo...g20040218.shtml

It is a mistake to go for an amendment to the Constitution to strictly define what marriage is. It is intrusive and divisive, and costs time and money better spent on fixing the economy, ensuring health coverage for children and adults who do not have it, and keeping our borders safe.

This is George W. Bush's side trip. Gays took the bait, and they have defiantly called his bluff. On Bush's side are the ministers who believe that homosexuality is sin, and if they don't do something about it, the apocalypse is going to come upon this country. They believe that sexual immorality is going to bring God's judgment upon us.

It is no accident that this is happening during a Presidential election year. If Bush's numbers can't be bumped up any other way, he'll use the time-honored Mom and apple pie--call it traditional American values--ploy.

This is so transparent. The "uniter" in the White House will rely on chaos and the staunch support of Religious Middle America and the Bible Belt while gays strive to achieve "marital status" where it has been prohibited.

In the meantime, it will be important for tempers not to flare and violent protests of any sort to be avoided, by both sides.

Again, if Bush is re-elected, the Religious Right Wing will push very hard to have the amendment passed. The more gays protest, the greater the reactionary support and the subsequent backlash will be.

This was not and should not be an issue addressed by the Constitution.

Untrue.

-The Constitution expressly "discriminates" against those under 18 by not allowing them to vote.

-Convicted felons are also not allowed to vote.

-Some convicted felons are denied their right to bear arms.

-Free speech is abridged for non-media members within 90 days of an election.

There are examples of limiting the rights of select groups of citizens.

Quite frankly, this Amendment would not be necessary if not for the existence of the Full Faith clause. The fact is, this cannot, legally, be left up to individual states to decide. Considering that 38 states already have laws banning gay marriage, the will of the majority of the states can be trumped by a single state who marries gays.

I am all for States' rights, especially on topics such as this. But the fact remains that individual states cannot make their own finding on this matter.

Maybe the Amendment should be re-worded to say "The right of any individual State to determine the qualifications for marriage shall not be abridged".

Would anyone (opposed to the current proposal) support that one?

Nope. Won't support that either.

In the '50's, such an amendment could have been used to keep blacks from marrying whites because their state decided that they didn't "qualify" for marriage. This really is a civil rights issue, because of the majority in this country who are happy to discriminate against "them".

Yes, this is clearly a diversionary tactic, but what would you have us do? Ignore the discriminatory laws that were passed?
After Clinton's support of DOMA I think it's a little bit ridiculous to pretend that Bush is the whole problem. None of the Democratic candidates, least of all Kerry, have made a principled stand against discrimination.
All I am hearing from Democrats is "Be a good little inflammatory term deleted, don't expect to be treated as a full citizen of the United States, or the bogeyman will get you."
I understand your point, but it's pretty damn hard to keep your temper sometimes when people who are not affected by anything you do decide they have a right to judge your love.
I also think it's a bit late to be telling the other side to avoid violence.

Yes, the government has limited the rights of groups of citizens before. And it will always do that--to ensure the safety of others. While the voting under 18 is questionable and probably should be overturned, how many people under 18 are interested in politics anyway? When I was 17, I was too concerned with which clique I was part of in high school.

However, criminals not being allowed to vote, I agree with. Although this does bring into consideration the question "Which types of lawbreaking citizens are considered criminals? Is someone like Mayor Newsom a criminal?" Basically, if a criminal has committed an act against another human being with hostile intentions, I don't see why the criminal should have any rights. I know this goes against my whole "human rights" stance, but I feel if a criminal doesn't respect the rights of other citizens, they should not have any themselves. This, however, is a tricky issue and not necessarily part of this debate itself.

So back to the main point--we don't want criminals to own guns because they've exhibited a contempt for their fellow man. It's a safety concern for the welfare of other citizens. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone--physically, mentally, or emotionally (possibly it will harm people morally, but if that were a concern, most laws would be repealed).

Amendments have, to my knowledge, never contradicted something held within the actual Constitution itself. Since the Full Faith clause is embedded within our U.S. Constitution, it would seem downright sacriligeous to propose your reworded amendment.

You are right in that the majority of states can be trumped by the will of a single state. But that doesn't mean the other states need to support gay marriage--they merely have to recognize the laws of other states. If, say, Massachusetts approves gay marriage, and a gay couple marries and then moves to Utah, this does not mean Utah must accept gay marriage for the entire state. They merely must recognize the marriage of the gay couple as valid. Utah does not automatically have to start marrying gay couples. I hope this makes some sense, although it is ripe with obvious debatable elements (of which I'm sure people will debate).


Well, in all fairness, Dennis Kucinich supports gay marriage. He's the only one who's advocated for it. I know Howard Dean was supportive of civil unions, and both Edwards and Kerry side with the "States' rights" idea. Which, of course, is why I voted for Kucinich in our primaries.

I would have to disagree with the logic here. If you will look at the first definition you posted:



Morality isn't generally defined individually, but rather by society--since society is what sets the standards for right or good conduct. Ditto for laws which simply seek, then, to codify morality. Which brings us back to the statement put forward by GrigUSA



This is a prominent issue precisely because it is a moral issue, and one that seeks to redefine what society accepts as right or good conduct.

So as long as YOU approve the discrimination, it is ok? I see where you stand...


Actually, every single Amendment has either contradicted or clarified the Constitution. Change in voting age, who is eligible to vote, repeal of Prohibition, how Senators are elected...


Which means this sentence does not follow from a historical perspective.



DOMA was sparked several years ago by an anticipated court decision in Hawaii:
'Full Faith and Credit' Clause Under Review
Clarifying the "Full Faith and Credit" clause would not be the first time that an Amendment was used for that purpose.

Amlord Posted on Feb 27 2004, 01:48 PM

This applies to all citizens therefore could not be considered discriminatory as it does not apply to a specific group racial, religious or sexual orientation. Under the age of 18 a citizen is the responsibility of the parents or guardian. Parents and guardians are allowed to vote.


Why would we allow a felon to vote?

Main Entry: fel·o·ny
Pronunciation: 'fe-l&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
1 : an act on the part of a feudal vassal involving the forfeiture of his fee
2 a : a grave crime formerly differing from a misdemeanor under English common law by involving forfeiture in addition to any other punishment b : a grave crime declared to be a felony by the common law or by statute regardless of the punishment actually imposed c : a crime declared a felony by statute because of the punishment imposed d : a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year

A citizen whom has so little regard for the rights of his fellow citizens and the law as to commit a felony forfeits the right to have input in these laws thus forfeits his right to vote. This is all part of the Due Process of the Law........ which is clearly outlined in the constitution.



Similarly to the above concept the felon also forfeits his right to bear arms as that individual has already proven to disregard the law and the rights of others, we as a society have every right to restrict the felons rights. This is all part of the Due Process of the Law........ which is clearly outlined in the constitution.


This is a bit fuzzy to me, though it does apply to all citizens therefore could not be considered discriminatory to specific group racial, religious or sexual orientation.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's been awhile since history class though I do remember discussion of the Founding Fathers specific concern for a truly free Press as part of the checks and balances required for a free society, to keep things honest and the citizens informed. I can certainly see where it is prudent to limit potentially misleading and slanderous information right before an election as misinformed citizens may not have the time to investigate and determine truth of such statements, though I will give you credit this one is suspect


I am not persuaded.... got any more?

Regardless what the qualifications are, I was simply pointing out that select groups ARE denied their "rights".

The basis of the discrimination is a lessor issue. What I wanted to point out was there are groups who do not have even their express Constitutional rights, and that the reasoning behind denying them these rights is not based upon the fact that we hate them.

Similar to the argument forwarded in defense of gay marriage (if you deny gay marriage, you should deny infertile homosexual marriage; or the flip side: some gays do decide to become parents), I could forward that my nine year old daughter is just as qualified to vote than the average adult voter. That doesn't mean I think she should vote, however.

There is a basic, twofold argument here:

1.) Is marriage a "right": We could forward that it falls under the "rights not expressed" clause of the Ninth Amendment. Of course, then I could forward that I should have the right to chew gum in class, or drive on the left hand side of the road or any other "right".

2.) If the answer to #1 is YES, then can the government deny such rights to certain groups, or put qualifiers on such rights. I have forwarded examples where the government denies Constitutionally guaranteed rights, even as you interject the non sequitur of a "sexual preference" basis.

Amlord,
I cant find Constitutional amendments for these three, maybe you could help me there.

I never said if I approve of the discrimination, it is okay. I merely said I agree with that particular instance. Since criminals have shown a disdain for the law, why should we allow them to maintain rights under said law? Why is it criminals only care about the law when it begins to infringe on THEIR rights? A criminal is more than welcome to challenge any law that may have caused their "criminal" status, but if a criminal is sentenced to prison for murder, why should we allow the criminal a gun once and if they are freed? Gay couples have not violated civil law, so why should we limit their civil freedoms?

You are correct on the amendments altering the Constitution--I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I posted that. I'd blame it on being tired except I'm not very tired.

If we were to clarify the Full Faith clause, then I'd be more happy. I did not know that was your intention with your proposed revision to the amendment in this debate. Of course (and you'll pardon me if I get some type of retributibal enjoyment from this argument), this leads to a slippery slope of "If we allow states to determine their own laws on marriage, why not other laws?"



But your arguments all influence other people. If someone drives on the left hand side of the road, you infringe on the rights of other citizens. If you allow a nine-year-old to vote, at what age do you limit it? I say the voting age should be 16 (if they are old enough to drive, they are old enough to vote too). However, voting is a public affair, much like driving on the left hand side of a road and chewing gum in class.

Gay marriage is a private affair, and as such, should be left to the privacy of the couple. Straight marriage is also a private affair, but our government recognizes it. It seems sensible then that either the government should recognize gay marriage or no marriages whatsoever.

I never said it was a Constitutional amendment, yet there are laws limiting the "inalienable" rights of the Constitution as a matter of law.

A bit of discrimination which IS enshrined in the Constitution is that only naturally born citizens may become President. Naturalized citizens have no other restriction of their rights (that I am aware of) except this one. (Please do not take that to mean I want Arnold as President, I am just pointing it out...)

Amlord Posted on Feb 27 2004, 03:17 PM


How is sexual preference a non sequitur? Are you saying that they do not constitute a group that are being discriminated against. Are they not a separate distinction from heterosexuals? If you are saying they are as heterosexuals are then why deny them a legally binding marriage?

No matter what our constitution grants equal access to the laws to all citizens (the individual) Group or no group, to deny access to citizens on the basis of sexual preference then categorizes them as a group thus becomes discriminatory to that group. I say all blondes are amoral and should not have access to our marital laws, how is that different, don't then blondes become the group being discriminated against. All I can say is thank God I am no longer a blonde!

Ok lets go back a bit..I said


Amlord said:


I/we are talking about an ammendment which would discriminate against a group of US citizens, a very large group. Not because they are law breakers, dangerous to society, under age, or doing anything non-consensual. All other adult citizens, despite being criminal ARE allowed this right.

The Constitution was created to protect all citizens, its not about democracy nor mob rule, nor majorities. There are no substantial arguements for this ammendment, only emotional ones. Certainely, homosexuals are not more immoral than pedophiles and serial killers, so that blows that whole argument.

I dont see the problem with states deciding this issue as the Constitution mandates.

(Ill agree that there are two discriminatory amendments, the vote at 18 and that only naturally born citizens can be President. Interestingly, both of these are also being called into question recently. )

Stop with the discrimination already, it has nothing to do with this issue.

Marriage is already defined and a handful of activist judges have no authority to change that. Nor do these dim-witted mayors.

The individual states may choose to do so, by ballot not judicial decree. If and when that happens, gay marriages will be legal in that state and only that state, if there is an amendment to the US constitution as suggested by GWB.

As it stands at this moment, if say California voted to allow gays to wed, all other states would be required to recognize that marriage. And that's not kosher folks. That's all the amendment is about, protecting the right of each state to decide this issue for itself, by its own citizens. Isn't that what freedom and democracy is supposed to be all about?

Discrimination has EVERYTHING to do with this issue- and whether you like it or not, it is the civil rights movement of our time, and those that are against it are the equivilent of the racists of the 60s. Same argument, same close minded behaviors.

According to the constitutional and federal law, if two heterosexuals wed in California, every state is REQUIRED to honor it.

Because the same is not true for a homosexual wedding, it's definitely discrimination. And this stupid amendment idea will codify that discrimination in a document that's done quite well for nearly 220 years without it.

Discrimination: yes, this is definitely what freedom and democracy are all about!

QUOTE (Passion51 @ Feb 27 2004, 10:10 PM)


Please post the verbiage of your GWB amendment.... as far as I am aware, this is the amendment in question;


This amendment would be extremely specific and discriminatory, don't you agree?

Reality check....

When I was married, we were issued a marriage licence by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet I did not have to re-apply when we moved out of the state. Arizona and Washington state seem to have been content to honor the marriage recognized in Virginia. So, why is it not kosher, as you put it? Should marriages only be recognized in the state of issuance? What about corporations? Corporate charters are issued by the states, not the Federal government. How does your point make any sense?

Does anyone else notice that, at least on this board, those arguing the hardest against the regulation or control of firearms are also arguing that freedom of association, and the freedom to create contracts between consenting people should be proscribed?

The latest in a series of ignorant arguments attempting to mask something whose only basis is a conservative (and very selective) interpretation of a few Bible verses, is to say, it's not about discrimination. It's purely a legal affair, et cetera.

My conciliatory, heartfelt statement several pages ago was completely ignored by those for whom it was intended. Perhaps only invective will engender a response. But the questions I posed then still stand: how does homosexual marriage harm anyone, that it should be proscribed? In what way does it harm our society? You can't simply say that it does, and start from that assumption, because there is no way to codify it. "I think it's bad because I think it's bad" is all this amounts to.

In order to justify why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, one would have to show some shred of evidence to support the idea.

Courts WILL find that there is nothing in our Constitution barring gay marriage. Without this amendment, gay marriage WILL become legal in all states. This amendment is a last ditch effort to stop this movement - and we have every reason to ask why. At the heart is discrimination and some vague scriptural support. Those who support an amendment like this need to be unmasked; they must not be allowed to hide behind invented logic and legalese a smart 12 year old could see through.

I'm not sure it's so easy to say that the majority are bigots just because they disagree with you. This is, after all, a democratic republic. Would you support a national referendum on the issue if it were available? Would accept the will of the people if the majority disagreed with you? If not, you do not believe in democracy but in anarchy!