Bush Backs Off of Marriage Amendment?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Nightwing: What gets me is how can the DOMA be constitutional. I thought it said in the constitution that no state shall pass a law that prevents a citizen from the persuit of happyness. Or something like that, and this clearly does. There may be something I am not seeing but it seems pretty simple to me.

You don't have to be married to fulfill your pursuit of happiness. In fact, many heterosexual couples live together (and even have children) without ever getting married. The ONLY "advantage" to marriage are the legal rights and benefits gained by the spouse.

I have a close friend who was dead-set against getting married, but has been living with his g/f for several years now. She has 3 kids from her first marriage and they just recently had a fourth child of their own. Once the fourth kid came along, my buddy was forced to admit that marriage DID bring some extra benefits that would make life easier for all of them - so he and his girlfriend actually decided to make their relationship "official". However, he had been perfectly happy living UN-married with her for the last several years.

So DOMA is not un-constitutional on the grounds of "pursuit of happiness".

And just for the record, there is a VAST difference between opposing homosexual marriages and being homophobic.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

You're right... Opposing gay marriage is not homophobic, it's heterosexist. And another "advantage" to marriage is the validation of a relationship by the state, and society.

This is not an attack, but merely a curiosity, Cerek... Would you support domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage? If not, how do you feel about the states that have banned all partnership laws for homosexuals?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: You're right... Opposing gay marriage is not homophobic, it's heterosexist. And another "advantage" to marriage is the validation of a relationship by the state, and society. This is not an attack, but merely a curiosity, Cerek... Would you support domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage? If not, how do you feel about the states that have banned all partnership laws for homosexuals?

I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. I agree that they deserve to have the same legal benefits as a married heterosexual couple. I also do not support the Marriage Amendment. I do NOT feel we need to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the sole purpose of defining the term "marriage".

I do believe that the term marriage should be reserved for a heterosexual union, and I freely admit this disagreement is based solely upon my religious beliefs. While critics will say that it is silly to be so "hung up" over a word, I would counter that by asking that - if that be the case - then why do homosexuals insist that their partnerships be called "marriages" if a "civil union" will grant them the same legal benefits?

BOTH sides are equally "hung up" on the term marriage.

As for the individual states, they have a right to define their laws as they see fit. Not all states banned civil unions or domestic partnerships (though some did specifically include those terms in the wording also). Many of these states ONLY banned "gay marriages". And most of those amendments were voted on by the general public, so the law does reflect the desires of the majority of citizens in that particular state.

I believe that each state has the right to endorse or deny gay marriages as they and their citizens see fit. I don't completely agree with those that banned any form of domestic partnership, but I still feel they have the right to create those laws if it reflects the opinion of the majority of their citizens.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: quote: a slime majoriy of Canadians support Sam-Sex marriage Many homosexuals will likely come to Canada if the conservatives in the United States continue this homophobic bullshit.

Okay...your post does not make sense, since you are contradicting yourself. Are you for or against?

[/QUOTE]I'm for (or least have no problem with) same-sex marriage. I'm not trying to contradict myself. The point that I'm trying to make to Conner is the fact that Canada is not as "gay friendly" as most homosexuals make of it. Yeah, it's legal but it's polorizing the country because the people opposed to are almost as numerous as the people who are for it.

[Jerr Conner]

I see your point.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: quote: a slime majoriy of Canadians support Sam-Sex marriage Many homosexuals will likely come to Canada if the conservatives in the United States continue this homophobic bullshit.

Okay...your post does not make sense, since you are contradicting yourself. Are you for or against?

[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Lol methinks a typo?

Or it's a fraudian slip (pun intended)