A Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 of each half of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Based on the recent passing of the "Defense of Marriage Act", and the 38 state legislatures that have passed "we don't recognize other states' gay marriages", I'd say that the bigots have this one wrapped up. There's no way this isn't going to pass.

What do you guys think? Please prove me wrong.

I do believe the Constitutional amendment will pass. It will be a dark day for human rights. On the bright side, a Constitutional amendment passed prohibiting liquor, and that was overturned. So an amendment doesn't mean the end of the road. Still, it is disheartening to think that our United States Constitution will contain yet another hypocritical element--I wonder, should we repeal the 14th Amendment before adding another one? While we're at it, let's repeal that first one as well, it's just troublesome for President Bush and many Americans.

While I don't really care about marriage (and certainly I don't care about the sanctity of marriage), I am upset and rather furious over President Bush's backing. I knew he would do it, but his announcement still angers me. We should stop singing that "Star-Spangled Banner" too... that whole "land of the free" line isn't quite accurate.

Sorry, I'm exaggerating quite a bit for effect. I fully understand that denying gay marriage will not end the world just as allowing it won't. I guess I'm just disappointed in our government right now.

Not a chance. This amendment would never pass and Bush knows it.

I am very opposed to gay marriage, but equally opposed to the federal government becoming involved in marriage. As with most things they touch, it'll only make matters worse. It's no coincidence that one of the biggest lies ever conceived is the one that goes, "I'm here from the government. And I'm here to help you".

Bush is such a fantastic conservative. He wants more government in our lives and is as fiscally conservative as my 4 year old daughter with her birthday money. How republicans stand for this, I simply don't know. I'm finding more in common with democrats these days and it just makes me want to drive a nail into my forehead.

Anyhow, this is his usual politics over principle in an attempt to get more votes. I really hope this backfires on him.

I'm rather ambivalent on this issue to be honest. However, as long as we have forum-shopping lawyers and activist judges that overstep their bounds and legislate by fiat from the bench, Constitutional Amendments like this are going to enter the political discussion.

I'm confused... how are "activist judges" overstepping their boundaries? I understand Mayor Newsom's actions are unlawful, and I don't support his tactics (even though I agree with his ideals). Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, and it should never have passed.

Aside from that, the Massachusetts judges are not activists--a lawsuit against the state was brought before them, and they made a judgment based on their Constitutional equal rights clause. This is not overstepping their bounds. Overstepping their boundaries would be if they hadn't been brought a legal case, and just demanded legislature provide equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

I voted "I hope not". I would have liked to have voted an unequivocal "no" but so many horrible policies have happened in the past 4 years that I thought I'd never live to see -- like the beginnings of the society in the book 1984/Patriot Act for example. How could our "representatives" pass such horrible laws?

There has been a big push here in our legislature here in Utah to pass Senate Bill 24, "Marriage Defined". The zeal with wich this bill has been pursued makes me afeared that fundamentalism is running rampant in the good ol' USA

I voted "I hope not" as I am rather neutral on this subject and honestly don't believe either gay marriages or abortions should be issues on the politicians' agenda. Having said that, I totally agree with Aquilla on why these issues will remain in the political arena.

Support for the currently defined amendment has been waning in the Senate, mostly because Senators are now figuring out that it also will stop civil unions. And too many states are thinking that civil unions will be enough to get them out of this box being built by the religious bigots.

Bush backed it as a political move to get the religious fanatics out to vote in November, but he also knows that it won't get through the Senate before then, so he'll do what he can to keep it rattling around the legislature and on the minds of the bigots. He's a uniter, not a divider; he just didn't say that he was this good at uniting the bigots.

I voted I hope not. When I check out various polls on this subject the answers are all over the place, generally depending on the veiws held. The best average seems to be almost even. Although polls of younger people under 30 seem to show a more positive veiwing on the civil rights of gays. I am of the beleif that the so called "Conservatives" are afraid that if they don't jump now they will never again have the ability to muster enough support.
I agree with Aquilla that activist judges have started overstepping their bounds. Seems if those judges had stayed out of the business of the people in Florida this wouldn't be an issue.
Things like this should never be turned political. Personally I am tired of people forcing others to their veiwpoints through threats of legislation. More people should mind their own Damn business for a change instead of messing with the constitution and trying to dictate morality for others.

Several of you feel the judges are out of line here. I don't see it. The judges are the only check and balance to keep legislative zealots from enshrining discrimination into the laws of this country. The judges are the only branch of government standing up for what is right here. The laws, while voted on by the majority, still don't make discrimination ok. That's the whole point.

And Chris is right. Republicans who feel that the activist judges are overstepping their bounds - your boy wouldn't even be trying to deflect his atrocious record with this pander to the religious right if the judges didn't put him there in the first place.

The judges are very important in the checks and balance of this country - ruling laws unconstitutional is part of their job.

I am truly torn on this issue.

Gay marriage will in no way at all harm the sanctity of my marriage or anyone elses. But still I cannot help but wonder.. Will this lead, or open the door, to other types of unions? Incest, polygamy, or other unspeakables. And yes I do know this is a bad argument because the same argument was made about inter-racial marriages and marriages between 2 different religions. But can we truly be assured that it won't come to one day, a man wanting his marriage of 2 women to be legal under the law. Or A father and daughter wanting to get married.

I will reiterate. I know this is a slippery slope argument. But it does have to be addressed. I spoke with my grandmother about this(if you still have grandparents alive, let them know you care by talking with them). And she remembers people being against inter-racial marriages. And people used to argue what will be next, homosexuals getting married?

Personally I don't have a problem with gay marriage at all. But can we be assured it won't lead to anything else?

I voted I hope not... I really can't figure out even why such an amendment is even on the table, lets get real if a Jane Doe citizen (EX-Republican) like me can figure that such an amendment is unconstitutional Jeese what are they thinking. The whole concept of amending our constitution to formally exclude any hard working, tax paying citizen just makes me sick. Whats really funny is Bush was most definately on the ballot for me though the prospect of me voteing for him gets Dimmer and Dimmer with each passing day of this garbage.

Although Mayor Newsom's actions may be illegal on the one hand, he is basing his decision on an interpretation of his state's constitution. He feels that superior law over rides Prop. 22, and he may well be within his rights as a public official to abide by that superior law. Ultimately this will be a decision for the courts, which I suspect will end up voiding the marriages already performed, if nothing else but from public sentiment.

Massachusetts has taken it upon themselves, through their own courts, to find that denying gays the right to marry is unconstitutional, and thus will be "legally" issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is many months if not years away, by which time there are going to be thousands of legal gay marriages, at least in Massachusetts, and perhaps other states as well.

It is easier to undo actions that are questionably legal than it is to void actions that are undeniably legal. The ambition of opponents was to prevent gay marriages from ever taking place, but now they will be confronted with taking away an established legal right, a much more difficult task, even on moral grounds. Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? I don't think so.

Besides, by the time we get to answer the question people are going to see for themselves how gay marriages will effect the "sanctity" of marriage, which is to say that it won't. No more so than divorce anyway.

Oh, I voted "No" by the way.

This is a very important point, and the very essence of what is up for debate here.

When the people disagree with the decisions of the Courts, it is their check and balance to be able to change the Constitution.

My gut feeling is that this issue may have enough impetus to succeed, but it is by no means a sure thing.


There is evidence to the contrary.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

I disagree with his causation (that gay marriage is a primary cause of the ruination of marriage in Scandinavia...) but I agree that gay marriage is a single component in the current liberal movement to transform the norms of society. The new norms would not include marriage, since marriage is exclusionary, restricting on uninhibited personal freedom, and is largely associated with religion.

Here is an article that lends credence to my theory, albeit not consciously. It is actually a rebuttal of Kurtz's article.


I have underlined the overtly liberally aligned causes that this author says are much more likely to erode marriage. This entire movement of moral equivalency and (more importantly) lack of personal responsibility has demonstrably eroded the institution of marriage. Gay marriage would not be a primary cause here, it is simply another step on the road to a world where no one is married, not because of anything to do with gays, but because of a lack of understanding of the underlying reasoning to get married ...(say it with me ...) children.

I know many people here disagree with me. Alot of American do not, however.

Maybe it's time we simply moved on. The time honored traditions of the past may be dinosaurs whose time for extinction has come. I, for one, hope not.

The most conclusive poll I have found to date http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relation...oll_040121.html


Amlord Posted on Feb 24 2004, 03:32 PM


If we are discussing amend the Constitution it seems to me the majority are not interested in amending. It appears to me the only majority happening is to leave it to the states.

IF an actual vote were to occur- I believe it would pass- we have always been a nation of bigots unfortunately- it is the saddest part of this country, and our primary weekness. If we spent less energy on discriminating against others and more energy just working and living our day to day lives, we truly would be a nation apart and a TRUE "home of the free" instead of a "home of the free for anyone that goes by our judeo-christian thinking".

Good point. However, Mayor Newsom should have taken an alternative approach to dealing with Proposition 22. He is now attacking this law appropriately, but his initial response (issuing marriage licenses) most likely hurt his cause.



If it does, we can deal with those issues as they arise. In Utah, home of the polygamy jokes (although polygamy has been outlawed for the past century), polygamy was once acceptable. The reasons to prohibit polygamy were primarily due to the practices by polygamists (marrying children, in-breeding, etc.). I can see polygamy being an issue, but it's been dealt with in the past.

Incest will never be allowed because it has been scientifically proven that offspring can be genetically malformed. It's primarily about--who will be harmed by marriage? In a gay marriage, there is no unwilling person harmed (further debate could be had on whether or not children are harmed by two same-sex parents, but that's for another topic).

If we rewrote the marriage laws to say "two consenting adults", you rid many problems, including polygamy and underage marriage.

Speaking of underage marriage, a 16 year old can get married in Utah. This is before they even have the right to vote, smoke, or drink. Underage marriage is allowed. How sad that teenagers can get married before two grown same-sex adults can.

The amendment will pass, but not without a fight. If it passes, some President in the future will have to amend the Constitution yet again to remove the offending passage restricting marriage to a man and woman. It's a waste of time--let each state decide which marriages to allow. While Utah may never allow them, at least we'll know it has not been federally mandated.

Here's a link to the actual transcript of Bush's speech:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/022404bushTranscript.htm

What really bothers me is this repition of the "Activist judges" misnomer. He must really think America is pretty stupid, I don't care if he says it 300 times in his next speech it does nothing to lend creedence to the fact that the argument makes absolutely no sense. Just go ahead and call them "progressive" or if you want a negative spin "liberal judges" but activist just doesn't make any sense.

There are two parts to the act of marriage:

1) A marriage is between a man and a woman.
2) A marriage is forever.

America has already nullified #2. Divorce is legal and available in all 50 states. Now George Bush wants to pass a constitutional amendment enforcing only #1.

From my personal perspective, you either outlaw both or let it be.

Hopefully it will pass. I have nothing against gays doing whatever it is they do, but their lifestyle does not fall within the concept and definition of marriage. Any attempt to squeeze it in there somehow is contrary to the very meaning of the word.

I voted that it would pass. I can't help but remember John Kerry on Fox News choking out the words that he was against gay marriage. It was obvious that it was not his personal view, but that he needed to say it to appease the majority of Americans who oppose it. I wouldn't be surprised to see many abstaining votes from the left in congress on this one, which only helps arrive at the necessary votes.


I saw this same comment in a different thread and want to refute it. By calling someone a bigot you are implying that a right is being denied by one group to another and that such a denial connotates a form of intolerance. This argument is misinformed. First, your premise is that civil marriage is a right. This is not so, as marriage is a privilege. Marriage is no more a right than is driving a car. People must qualify for a marriage license before being permitted to marry, much like an individual must qualify for a driver's license. Some states go so far as to require blood testing before the granting of a marriage license. Qualifications are indicative of privileges. Society is no more bigoted in excluding people who do not qualify for a driver's license as those who do not qualify for marriage.

It won't pass. First, you have those states that will vote against the amendment because of their belief in gay marriage. Then, you'll have a large group of democrats that will oppose it because of political issues. And lastly, you'll have those few who realize that such an amendment actually takes away power from the states.

I do realize that most people oppose gay marriage, but the country is just too divided politically for it to pass.

Heterosexuals are denying equal rights to homosexuals. This is one group denying rights to another in the form of intolerance. The reason I know it is intolerance versus denying rights to those less qualified, is because homosexuals are no less qualified to marry than others. There is nothing inherent in a heterosexual relationship that homosexual relationships can't satisify. That makes those who deny gays equal rights BIGOTS.

Those who do not qualify for a drivers license are not allowed to have licenses because giving them one would endanger other people. Those who do not meet Christian qualifications for marriage (heterosexuals) are allowed to marry, and those who do not meet Christian qualifications for marriage (homosexuals) are not allowed. Neither result poses a safety threat to other citizens. Your driver's license analogy is a poor one.

This is Dubya throwing a bloody chunk of red raw meat to the social conservatives. Nothing more than pure politics at its ugliest.

It takes a 2/3 vote by both houses of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The Senate is Republican dominated by a 51-49 split. There is certainly no guarantee that every Republican will close ranks on this one even if a few Democrats vote with the majority. The House is far more partisan in its GOP tilt, but it's not a slam dunk vote in that chamber either.

Let's say this amendment does get out of Congress. It takes 38 states to ratify it before it becomes part of the Constitution. I don't think even Bush thinks he's going to see this amendment under his Christmas tree this year.

Remember the Balanced Budget Amendment that Reagan proposed? What about the constitutional amendment to ban burning the flag? There's a good reason why it is so hard to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is usually amended to grant a right, not take them away.

So why is the President all hot and bothered about gays and lesbians jumping the broom? Because this is an election year and the social conservatives view same-sex marriage as an abomination and want Bush to do something about it.

Dubya doesn't want an amendment. He wants an issue to campaign on and now he has one. Well, he said he was a "uniter not a divider." What he forgot to add was he was united with the homophobes and religious bigots.

Well, nighttimer, I agree that the strategy is pretty clear. Gee Dubya can't put up his record on the War on Iraq (supposedly part of the War against the Terrorists) and the economy for debate because they are both, as Dick Gephardt said, "a miserable failure." Senator Kerry will have an uphill battle sticking to the issues that have angered Democrats to the point of some semblance of cohesiveness.

Gee Dubya is using that time-honored magician's strategy: misdirection. And the gay community, in their contempt for Bush and civil disobedience, are actually making him look like some kind of righteous and lawful prophet in comparison to the social conservatives. The gays are being used big time.

Whether or not the amendment has a chance doesn't matter to Bush as long as it manages to get him four more years in the White House. But if he does get four more years, it clearly stands a better chance of passing.

This is an issue that the states should decide. I don't think it should be a Constitutional amendment.

I don't think this has a chance of actually happening, for the mathematical reasons that nighttimer has so clearly spelled out. The Constitution is hard to amend. The Equal Rights Amendment couldn't get passed, so I doubt that this thing could.

For the record, in the extremely unlikely event that this proposed amendment is added to the Constitution, I will finally lose all respect for the government of the United States and give up all hope. Oh, I'll still obey the law, because I don't want to be jailed or killed; but I will have not honor the law.

Actually, according the the supreme court of the US, marriage is a basic human right.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Paladin Elspeth:Oh, the scapegoating is apparent. But what would you have us do?
The responses seen here prove that we can't depend on people doing the right thing.

As for my vote, I certainly hope it doesn't pass.

This is clearly a pitiful attempt for George W. Bush to take some of the spotlight off his failures with the economy and Iraq and focus everyone on a very politisized social issue. It also happens to be a social issue that his probable rival, John Kerry, is not likely to take an opposite stance on. In fact he is rather neutral and wishy-washy on it.

By all recent polls, most Americans (including Republicans) do not favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. An amendment of this nature couldn't possible garner 3/4's of the required state's votes, and I highly doubt it could begin to garner the necessary congressional votes since the congress is not 2/3rd's Republican either.

The laws passed in 38 states banning gay marriage were passed at times when the gay community had little voice, little support and this was not a hotly debated political issue. They also most likely passed quietly, tucked in with some other state propositions. State elections, unless there is some kind of hot issue to be decided, generally have fairly low turnouts. Saying 61% of people passed something in a state election isn't saying much.

It has only been in the last five years (and that is probably overestimating) that many Americans have even paid any attention to the gay community outside of the occasional off color joke or other bigotry.

I would be willing to bet that a decent portion of those 38 states would not be able to pass those same laws today were they put to a vote.

Amlord!! Ammy Ammy Ammy what is this. You give us a paper published by the Standard? Oh yeah there's fair and balanced. ( Yes Ammy I know you also presented the other side)What's next a reference to Micheal Moores rant that America is made up of mostly Liberals.



Gimme a break deerjerky, considering some of the Jerry Springer families I have seen in my life obviously the qualifications are of the extreme minimalist bent.


For an interesting breakdown on this issue go to the Gallup on the Air section down towards the bottom of the screen. It is a movie clip and has some very interesting numbers
http://www.gallup.com/

I voted I hope not...

The Equal Rights Amendment should have passed, but never made it into the Constitution.

There is a routine effort for an amendment to ban burning the flag. Most photos I have seen of American flags being burned are at protests in other nations. We have a neighbor who hung a flag out on 9/11/2001, and has never bothered to light it, bring it in when it rains or at night, or repair the now missing grommet at the top of the flag. It is tattered, upside down, and representing no Patriotism that I can imagine. Several months ago, I printed out a couple of flag protocols which point out that a flag in that condition should be burned. At the Super Bowl, Kid Rock found it "patriotic" to cut a slit in the middle of an American flag and wear it as a poncho. People routinely abuse an American flag, or ignore protocol re: the flag, but people persist in believing that an amendment to outlaw burning the flag would somehow solve all these problems.

Now we have a "Defense of Marriage" amendment proposed... Half of all marriages end in divorce, and someone was on CNN a short while ago saying that in countries that allow gay marriages, that figure rises to 60%... It seems a total non sequitur to me that allowing gays to marry somehow threatens the rights of heterosexuals to marry, or threatens our marriage in any way.

I think the Republicans have handed George W. Bush a Red Herring and a sword, and placed him in a bull ring to fight a bull. "The bull will charge the Red Herring George, and as he passes, you can stab him." While the mob is watching the Crazy Gringo Toreador, the corporate pickpockets can get back to fleecing the watching crowd. Patriot missiles are shooting down friendly aircraft. "Oh look at that daring pass." Gas prices are up again. "Yes, but Gay marriages threaten the stability of the world." Did anyone remember to drug that old bull to give the matador a chance? "Look. Isn't the President brave? He can land on an aircraft carrier as a passenger! Isn't that Presidential?" "The President is a patriot!" Let's amend the Constitution so that his buddy Ahnold can run for President... "There has been an end to hostilities in Iraq." "Mission accomplished." "Re-elect our courageous leader who is so brave as to publicly state that the Constitution should be amended to allow men and women to marry."

I hope not...

I voted no - mostly due to numbers and looking at failure of past amendments proposed in recent years (well, anything since 1933 really).

This bible thumping over this select issue is such an obvious reelection ploy it makes me sick. Why isn't the issue an ammendment to ban abortion? Because Bush knows the numbers aren't there, since its been in the public mind longer and people are more or less "used to it" (and those in the younger generation practically take it for granted - thus use of a national law (which can still be challenged in the courts). But, with this issue, people are not as "used to it" since it hasn't been in the public eye as long. Though, I still think the younger generation generally tends to take homosexual relationships for granted as normal (hence the under 30 opinion difference).

Kerry annoys me - while this issue is a non issue for me (well - sort of, government needs to stay out of it) - he has to realize this is going to become a cornerstone issue for Bush 2004, but instead of picking a position to fight him on it, he's going to just waffle. He could at least make it a state's rights issue - since, that actually seems to be the majority opinion in the country anyway.

Bush keeps saying let the people decide, but then does something like this - which is distinctly not letting the people decide (not directly - only very indirectly... and considering I don't normally vote for people b/c of their religous background but b/c of their policies on actual things that affect me like taxes, budgets, etc - I don't think any of the people I've voted for recently would vote the way I would want).

Bush's message is He doesn't care about anybody except those who hold the same bigoted views as he does (and this is bigotry - a bigot is anyone who is "intolerant of any creed, belief, or race that is not his or her own"). Otherwise, if he truly wanted this issue to be up to the people, it stands to reason it would be up to the people who this affects (as in, the same sex couples who want to get married).

In the end, if this amendment passed despite all odds - I would finally have to return to the vaterland - where they would be glad to have me back, since German birth rates have been below death rates since at least the 1970s and is of such a concern, some people even like the idea of homosexual marriage as a way of encouraging birth rates (through artifical insemination and surrogacy) since the heterosexual couples have no real intention of either getting married or having children... which all has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, but certainly has affected the "traditional marriage".

I think it should be left to states rights. I personally could care less if gays marry or have civil unions as long as they get equal rights. I think it would be apalling if in our great document of law we were so paranoid that we included an amendment about marriage. Im sorry but thats pathetic and it will only tarnish the constitution. This is lunacy. Leave the constitution alone.

I'll vote that I hope the amendment gets into the Constitution.

Because it will show just how silly we have become in our thinking. Bush wants to codify spiritual marriage, something that cannot be demonstrated through physical means. He doesn't want to disallow civil marriage, which can be demonstrated through physical means.

It would be a senseless and unenforceable ammendment. It would also contradict the First Amendment, which gives everyone the right to practice their own religions however they see fit.

So should there be a gay church? One that can do gay marriages?

Maybe the gay community ought to look into this. I think it would be a hoot!

I voted, "I hope not."

Aren't conservatives supposed to favor decentralized government? If their fear is that legalizing gay marriage in certain states would trigger lawsuits in others, why don't they propose writing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into the constitution? That way, no state would be required to recognize same-sex marriage, but no state would be prohibited from doing so.

For the record, I do not think that the government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses.

Regardless of whether the FMA passes, those who are unmarried should demand that they are not denied any of the legal, tax, and financial benefits and protections given to married couples. After all, unmarried people head 50 nearly percent of all U.S. households.

The problem with the "Let the States decide" argument is: the State's have decided (at least 38 of them have). But this is simply not sufficient. The efforts in California and Massachusetts clearly indicate that the Legislative Branch has no power to make law here. A single law (actually, judicial fiat) in Massachusetts would overturn the law in the rest of the States. It is clear to me that such a solution is unworkable.

The only check on the power of the Courts is (apparently) amending the Constitution.


I also gave you an article from a pro-gay website, and demonstrated how they believe as I do : that marriage is taking a nose dive.

The reason is not gay marriage, but gay marriage is a single symptom of something that has eroded marriage over the course of the last generation: a lack of exclusivity, a lack of commitment, and a lack of personal responsibility. These things

From the article I cited earlier:


Marriage has eroded (in Scandinavia, at least) to the point where it is not even a majority phenomenon. It has lost its basis as the foundation of the family, to the detriment of us all.

Ok, I give up: how do gays wanting to be married show a "lack of exclusivity, a lack of commitment"??? To me, this shows they WANT exclusivity and commitment. Perhaps the problem is with heterosexuals and we need to legislate THEIR behavior. No Couple Left Behind!!

As for the states deciding: it's not judicial "fiat" to rule that the state constitution takes precendence over state laws. That's what judges DO. Can't blame the judges if the legislature makes a law that violates state constitution. Can't blame the mayor of SF for challenging state law that violates the state constitution. Be glad someone is looking out for the minorities, because someday you might be one of those minorities.

Meanwhile, the Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1998 hasn't been successfully challenged yet under 14th Amendment rights. I wonder why? Or is what's happening in SF and Massachusetts is the first step toward that challenge?

My argument was that marriage has been treated by society as a privilege, and I agree that it is and should be. The supreme court did not rule that marriage was a basic right, rather it was the opinion of those judges which led to the ruling in that case (interracial marriage). It is also easily arguable that the definition of marriage that they referred to included the traditional qualifier of man and woman. Even if the court ruled that marriage was a right of every man, woman, and child, as the Supreme Court did in Massachusetts, there is still the question of whether doing so is legislative in nature and not within their power. Even still the decision does not lie solely on a single branch of government, but all three branches must weigh in, including the people. This is what is taking place right now across America. I still hold to my view that marriage is a is a privilege.

If marriage is a privilege, would you care to explain to me why murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and other such criminals are allowed to marry? What you advocate is that a gay couple is less acceptable than a murderer getting married. Frankly, your argument of "privilege" only holds water if society actually viewed marriage as a privilege. It does not.

And frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing that marriage should stick with traditional values. In the past, love had nothing to do with marriage. It used to be who in your social order would benefit your social status. Marriage was once concerned solely with position and money. A poor woman who married a rich man was considered extremely lucky. Nowadays, it is normal. Marriage has undergone so many changes throughout history. Why should we suddenly declare marriage as a sacred institution when same-sex couples ask for the privilege?

You've given a fairly good picture of the erosion of marriage, I guess. But you throw in gay marriage as a 'symptom' without explanation? In what way, precisely, does gay marriage fit in here? How is it a symptom?

For that matter, is marriage really eroding? I see it more as a combination of so many things, that it is very easy for people with any particular ideology to spin the high divorce rate to their liking. Surely there is a combination of factors, and most certainly, not all of them are negative. Have you ever heard the phrase "separating the wheat from the chaff?" As women's power in society has increased, so have their choices. Having a greater ability to be financially independent means fewer women feel they have to stay in abusive or merely loveless marriages. Furthermore, can we point to any specific datum which shows that people in committed relationships who are NOT married are any less faithful or monogamous than married couples?

I do agree with you that people have become more self-serving, more self-centered, in this age, and that does have its effect on marriage. But how do we solve that problem? I can't help but think that a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage does anything but place a paper-thin bandaid on the problem. Indeed, such an act is evidence of the same mindset - the idea that there is a quick fix, an external agent, which we can easily address and the problem will disappear. Such an amendment will do absolutely nothing to solve the real issues. What is it about our society that promotes self-serving, that promotes seeing the world through self-centered lenses? It's not gay marriage. It's not rampant promiscuity even. It's not something that can be solved through laws.

Throughout history, the people who have had the freedom to act in their own interest have always been the patrician class of society. Whether under feudalism, authoritarianism, or monarchy, the plebians have not been free to pursue their own chosen interests. Now, I'm no enemy of capitalism, but it seems to me that empowering more people with more choice and freedom to pursue their self-interest leads to the state of consumerism and selfishness we see today. You see the old traditions falling apart - traditions which were largely based around the idea of community taking precedence over the individual's whims - and you look for some causal that satisfies your desire to blame some external agent. But isn't the erosion of community-minded traditions part and parcel of having greater freedom of choice, greater economic freedom, greater freedom to actively pursue our self interest?

"Personal responsibility" gets bandied about an awful lot these days. But it doesn't mean other people taking responsibility for their actions ("them"). It means us, taking responsibility for our own actions - and for the consequences of those actions. That must include taking responsibility for the negative side of our own 'philosophies.'

I have been very happily married for nearly 14 years, since I was 21. My wife and I have a wonderful relationship, and not to brag, but we are excellent parents. Amlord, from what little I know about you, you would probably say you are in much the same position, and I absolutely believe you. So, can we examine together what we have in common that makes it so? Our 'philosophies' seem so often to be diametrically opposed, and yet we both share this trait personally, of commitment absolutely to something we consider larger than ourselves. So what is that? And most importantly, how do we apply that to the wider stage of life, politics, and reasoning?

It is my belief, and it is a strong belief, that a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages will not only NOT solve the basic problem here; it will exacerbate the divisiveness already so evident in our beautiful society. I do not think such a motion will pass. I fervently hope it does not. I realize that many of the issues I have raised in this post are better debated or rebutted in other threads; however, I wanted to lay out my reasons why this amendment is a bad idea, covering as many vertical (or meta) levels as possible.

It seems to me that this is not really about the denial of rights and/or privilege. IT is about the term marriage.

I think that if you were to argue for civil unions on the basis that people and their partners were being denied some of the basic things we have come to expect when two consenting adults love each other and make a long-term commitment to each other (like medical rights, child custody, insurance, etc.), you would find that there was a greater amount of support based for granting those rights. However, the second you say "marriage" you immediately polarize the audience.

I don't necessarily agree with the term "activist judges", but I do think that if you ask an official to use their personal judgement, beholden to no one, to interpret something like the term "marriage", there is no guarantee you will get an opinion that all, or even most, of society agrees with.

If the check for the courts is the Constitution, then maybe it's not so out of line to be considering this, assuming that the majority disagrees with the judges.

Deerjerkydave, I can sort of understand where you are coming from, here, but I'd like to point out a few things. Yes, marriage as it's currently practiced, is a privilege, and not a "right".

You noted earlier, that people have to "qualify" for a marriage license, some to the point of requiring a blood test. However, this is not nearly universal. Only 12 states require a blood test. Only 9 states have any kind of waiting period for getting married after receiving said license. The only "qualification" I saw that was universal, was that the participants be at least 18 years of age (without parental consent), and having the money to pay for the license itself. Since we are talking about consenting adults here, what in any of this would "disqualify" them?

Can you honestly say that Gays marrying would damage this "privilege" more than our current divorce rate, or "marriages" of the type recently hyped on the news by Brittney Spears?

And marriage is a "privilege" that actually grants rights to the spouse of a married person. I heard these points on a morning news interview show in the last couple of days.

For instance, in every state, even if a person dies without a will, the spouse generally receives at least 50% of the dead spouses estate. Usually more. Currently, a Gay person whose partner dies without a will, would receive nothing.

It is assumed that the surviving spouse made a considerable contribution to the earnings of that estate. No such assumption is made in the case of Gay people who live together, even if they have been doing so for 20 years.

However, since most states also have a "common-law" marriage statute, even straights living together for the specified number of years can claim a fair portion of the "common-law' spouse's estate.

A portion of the deceased spouse's social security generally goes to the survivor, if the deceased's payments were more than the survivor's. Gays cannot collect this.

As a husband, should I become ill or injured seriously enough to become hospitalized in intensive care, my wife is always allowed visitation rights. However, a Gay's partner wouldn't necessarily have that same option. The hospital could exclude them, on the basis that they are not "immediate family". Even if they have a better relationship than most straight, married couples.

DeerJerkyDave, here's the definition of privilege you provided:

priv·i·lege:

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
The principle of granting and maintaining a special right or immunity: a society based on privilege.

Law. The right to privileged communication in a confidential relationship, as between client and attorney, patient and physician, or communicant and priest.

An option to buy or sell a stock, including put, call, spread, and straddle.

Leaving aside the last definition, it would seem that Constitutionally speaking, all of the current laws specifically deny a right to a portion of our population that are of the age of majority, and consenting to the act of marriage (be it a civil union or otherwise), under the first two definitions.

Even under the third definition, we currently have a particulary discriminatory bent. If, say, a crime has been alledged against someone who is married, his or her spouse is not required to testify against them. This is not the case with Gay partners. They would be forced to testify, or go to jail as well.

Now, with all that being said, I have no dog in this fight. it bothers me not a bit if Gays marry or not. But I always thought that the Constitution was all about securing State's and Individual's rights, and not about forcibly denying them.

How exactly does one read the words "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." and come to the conclusion that the argument used by the supreme court was anything other than marriage being a right.

You don't have a leg to stand on, the "qualifications" for marriage are so laughably low for heterosexual couples. Murderers on death row are allowed to get married.
The opposition to same sex marriage makes absolutely no sense, the only argument in favor of the amendment is, in fact, sheer bigotry. Amlord's laughable theories about marriage being all about reproduction fall apart because he is unwilling to apply that "reasoning" to heterosexual couples who are unable to have children. The slippery slope argument is especially dumb, because acceptance of same sex marriage changes none of the basic facts that would be used to decide on other cases- the slippery slope argument carries the added benefit of being exceptionally mean spirited in comparing the love I have for my boyfriend with raping small animals or molesting children.

This issue was brought before the public by rabid right wing bigots attempting to write discrimination into the laws. It is amusing to see conservatives abandon their flimsy pretext of states rights, though.

NiteGuy, thank you for responding sensibly to my arguments with good arguments of your own. As usual, I'm a bit outnumbered in AD so I only have time to respond to some of the points being made.
First, thank you for conceding on this one. My whole reason for bringing this up was to refute the idea that society is bigoted because of the existence of conditions on marriage. If known basic rights were being violated, then I would understand the name calling.

Second, why do such conditions exist? We've mentioned a few of the conditions. I think that the number of persons allowed in the union is another one. So is family related and gender. I belive that such conditions exist to keep society safe and healthy. If enough people can become convinced that homosexual relationships are safe and healthy for society, then you will see the gender condition dropped from the list of qualifiers. Currently, however, many Americans remain unconvinced.

It's terrible isn't it? I agree, states should not permit such to qualify for marriage. Would bigotry be the cause if society wanted to exclude murderers from marriage? I don't see it.

But murderers are not prevented from marrying. Do you think this might be because marriage is, and has been determined by the supreme court of the United States to be, a basic human right?

No one has espoused a single valid reason to deny this basic right to gay folks, and denying in the face of legal citations to the contrary that marriage is a right is no better than any of the other arguments used to support discrimination.

There is nothing homophobic or religiously bigoted about this issue. Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, period. Not a man and many women, not a man and boy, not a woman and a beast. A man and a woman. They might be Catholic and Jewish, Evangelical and Adventist, Agnostic and atheist. Any religious combo you'd like.

There are a handful of activist judges who are trying to usurp legislative powers and make law that is opposed by the majority of the citizens of this country. That is in itself unconstitutional.

I am glad Bush has the strength of conviction to call for this amendment. His leadership is countered by that oh-so-solid Kerry who is in the midst of another one of his infamous flip-flops on issues of importance. These activist judges must be stopped. They are hell-bent on destroying the very fabric of this nation.

They won't survive this time, they've been exposed for what they are.

Wow- gay marriage is going to rip apart the fabric of this nation? The weave must be pretty weak if this is what it is going to take.

There is absolutely no logical reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, except sheer bigotry. The same arguments being used here are the same arguments as used against racial intermarriage in the 50s. It was bigotry then, it is bigotry now. The poeple that argue against gay marriage are the same that protested desegregation in the 50s, screaming on the steps of that Little Rock school at that black girl as she is allowed to go to a "white" school. Those bigots were on the wrong side of history then, even though they were (initially) in the majority, and the bigots are wrong today.

Funny thing is, it was "activist" judges that were decried by Wallace and company, just as they are today. How conservatives that want more freedom and less goverment intrusion in this country, don't mind the goverment deciding who can and can't get married between consenting adults. Those who are against gay marriage are bigots. It is a harsh reality, not meant to inflame, but some introspection is neccesary when you don't mind controlling the unharmful behavior and taking away the rights of consenting adults.

Right now, the bigots have the day, hopefully, like with the civil rights movement, the tide will turn and reason will rule.

Well, maybe not religiously bigoted, but bigoted nonetheless.

And KILL ALL THE ACTIVIST JUDGES!!! Because of them, blacks are no longer "separate but equal!" The police would be able to pick you up and hold you without any reason to charge you!! And they wouldn't have to tell you what your rights were!! Damn those judges all to hell!!! They've screwed this country up!!



Now then. Back to reality.

Without a little judicial activism, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites. Marriage is currently defined as a man and a woman. No one is trying to get man and boy or man and beast and you're insulting good monogamous people by putting that crap in the same sentence.

Did you notice that in another topic, Jaime pointed out that "activist judges" was the new buzzword of the day?

Really, I don't see this. In Goodridge v Department of Public Health, the judges ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage went against the state's constitution:



Hence- the judges were doing their job - upholding the supreme law of the state - its constitution. Thus starts the scramble by the Mass. legislature to ammend their constitution such that it bans same sex marriage. If they pass such an amendment (looks unlikely considering how many have been voted down thus far) - then the judges faced with future cases would have to rule oppoosite. Just because a judge rules opposite of what president Bush personally wishes does not make them an activist judge. Of course, we could say any judge striking down a law due to it being unconstitutional is being an activist judge - considering it was all started in Marbury v Madison with that original activist judge. Lets just get rid of judicial review all together since (at the moment) it seems to be going against our "brave and courageous" president.



Really? I have yet to hear a non-homophobic or non-religiously based argument against same-sex marriage. Currently, many state laws state marriage is between a man and a women - but its not really about if they are a man and a women, but if the people involved look like a man and a women - thus, it is legal for a transexual who has undergone surgery and now looks like a woman to get married to a man. In fact, transexuals can get their birth certificate changed after the surgery, so no one would ever know... and if a male to female transexual wanted to marry another female? Well, that would be illegal. Why?? because the two parties involved both look female. If this were really about a man and a woman getting married - every state would require blood tests in order to karyotype the individuals and make sure the two people are actually male and female. There are a surprising number of people born in this world with the genes of one sex and the outward appearance of the opposite. Oftentimes these individuals do not find out until they try to have children! It would be interesting - if a woman had the genes of a man and wanted to marry another woman - it would still be illegal, because the two individuals involved look like women and live their lives as women. How is this not homophobia?



I agree - well, sort of... Someone is certainly hell bent on destroying the fabric of this nation - but I wouldn't say it was the judges, whose job is to interpret the constitution and keep the legislature in check.

The oft quoted preamble to the constitution:


I don't see them mentioning marriage... In fact, it doesn't mention marriage anywhere in the constitution or subsequent bill of rights. If marriage is so key to the "very fabric of this nation" why hasn't it been thought of before now? Why havn't people been pushing to protect marriage since Jefferson's time? Maybe it's not so core to the very fabric of this nation. I certainly hope not considering the current 40% divorce rate - coming from increasing total number of divorces (957,200 in 2000 up from 944,317 in 1999) and the decreasing total number of marriages (2,355,005 in 2000 down from 2,366,623 in 1999). As a young women with no current intentions of getting married now or in the future, I don't see it as a very important part of the country. I've heard statistics for single parent (usually single mother) homes that supposedly prove this family type breeds stupidity, criminality and sloth - but these stats are almost always cooked... they don't account for the lower income, they don't compare single parent homes of a certain income v dual parent homes in the same income bracket. They completely ignore certain gender issues (ie Women of same qualifications in same job will make less than a man) that are core to such a debate... so How is marriage so vital to this nation?

Lets take that Scandinavian report supposedly trying to show that homosexual marriage is one more nail in the coffin of marriage - the entire thing failed to prove a basic premise - that a married state is somehow desireable over a single or cohabitation state. I haven't heard anything about massive riots or terrible upheaval in any of the countries studied - so there is nothing to me to indicate that marriage is somehow important to the survival of this nation or any other nation. You can start talking about birth rates - but the scandinavian countries studied still have birth rates above the death rates in all but Sweden - where the birth and death rate have been close since 1980.

The emotional, slippery slope type of argument that are society will be destroyed by allowing same sex marriage is just that - an emotional, slippery slope argument that doesn't hold water. Somehow people are linking failing hetersexual marriages to a gay couples desire to get married... and even if this were somehow perversely true (gee honey, I want to divorce you because mr jones and mr smith next door want to get married ) then this argument still fails to show how the general failure or success of marriage will impact the society in a positive or negative way. (just because something changes, does not mean it is automatically bad)

I do not believe it will pass. There have been other issues in the recent past with more universal support and less political baggage which didn't pass--I don't see why this will be any different. Rather, raising it as a position is a good way to take a stand without having to really take any action: "Hey, it's in the states hands now--nothing I can do."

Also, I do not think it is a hot issue for a lot of people, despite the current attention it is receiving. As for my personal beliefs, I am struck by this thought: If we decide to be against homosexual marriages for what they do to the institution of marriage, then how should we as a society handle adulterers? Should they also be banned from marrying? I think the comparison follows religiously, morally, and ethically. Yet, there's no outcry against that. The logic doesn't follow for me....

These same lame excuses were made by people who were terrified of blacks marrying whites and diluting the purity of the white race.

Guess what? There's still plenty of white people in the world no matter how much they mix up their genes with blacks, Latinos, Asians, Indians and every other racial group you can name.

All this hot air and hype about "activist judges" is a distraction from the real issue of a activist president who debases the Constitution of the United States and exploits an entire group of people just so he can get reelected.

George W. Bush...just another cheap politician using fear and sowing division to save his own sorry butt.