Constitution Admendment to ban gay marriage?

[BaRoN NiGhT]

sorry magik, but i think yer font size is a little bit too big [img]tongue.gif[/img]

--------------------

[johnny]

There's gonna be a lot of pissed off people in San Fransisco now.

[ 07-01-2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

Originally posted by BaRoN NiGhT: sorry magik, but i think yer font size is a little bit too big [img]tongue.gif[/img] --------------------

Hey big boy, you like the size of my font? Some people like big fonts, while others say that size doesn't matter

[ 07-01-2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, that NRO article is full of drivel. It is logically permissible to think affirmative action is allowable in principle (COMPELLING INTEREST) but not in the instant case (no NARROWLY TAILORED), as I've explained before. Moreover, the fact the court decided based on privacy, and not equal protection, will preserve marriage under current law.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits federal recognition of gay marriage, and specifically allows states to ignore gay marriages created in other states. So, gay marriage is currently prohibited by statute. I would not support the referenced constitutional amendment, but would respect it if it passed. Anything 38 states and 2/3 of both houses of Congress can agree on, I can accept as the law of the land. Of course, this high requirement for Amendment is why it won't happen and is a moot issue.

I agree that this is a little "playing it up" to placate the Republican wingnut peanut gallery. Those who forget that many Republicans, like O'Connor, are moderate and would have us believe the Christian Coalitian is truly representative of the party are a vocal minority that the Republicans bend over backwards to keep quiet.

I like NightStalker's idea getting rid of marriage (legally, not religious) and all its attendant benefits/detriments altogether. In the modern day of single moms, gay couples, and shacked-up retirees, segregating one group as deserving special legal priviliges simply because they follow the "nuclear family" model seems silly. Haven't we come a long way, baby?

As for a defense of traditional marriage, I'd love to see MagiK, or anyone else, post some valid arguments. I like nothing more than having my viewpoint changed for me. However, I can't see any. Any argument for traditional families based on "having babies" is silly: many hetero couples are infertile, and many gay couples adopt. Basing it on historical and traditional values is meaningless without a logical underpinning: elsewise, I want all women to quit working and resume their normal roles as child-rearer, a job that we basically subcontract out to schools, malls, day care, and babysitters these days (as women's lib has truly meant "becoming men" rather than "becoming free and liberated women"). Anywho, I'll shoot down (or not) other arguments for reserving marriage for this person or that person as I see them. But, I welcome some good ones.

[ 07-01-2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Sir Goulum]

Well, if anyone wants to get married thats gay they could just go to Ontario [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, that NRO article is full of drivel. It is logically permissible to think affirmative action is allowable in principle (COMPELLING INTEREST) but not in the instant case (no NARROWLY TAILORED), as I've explained before. Moreover, the fact the court decided based on privacy, and not equal protection, will preserve marriage under current law. You know TL you have the bad habbit of discounting some issues as drivel when they are actually perfectly valid positions. You should say rather that "In YOUR opinion it is drivel" but YOUR opinion is not the only one around guy.

I don't have the time or inclination at the moment to follow up on your whole post. But I do know that as much as you and others feel that I discount out of hand opposing views to my own, I realy think you are guilty of exactly that in this issue.


By the way. I still have not said that I agree with one side or the other. I have my suspicions on which would be better for our society but I'll wait and see.

[ 07-01-2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Arvon]

I doubt this would ever get through the congress much less the states. But it would be great to watch the pols wiggle in their voting. Could kill a lot of careers.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: You know TL you have the bad habbit of discounting some issues as drivel when they are actually perfectly valid positions. You should say rather that "In YOUR opinion it is drivel" but YOUR opinion is not the only one around guy.

I don't think so, not always. That particular article did not read any real reviews of the court's holding OR did not realize the logical application of the law. That made it drivel -- IMO. Logic isn't really arguable. It is perfectly fine to have a rule of general applicability (i.e. The STRICT SCRUTINY test) that applies in some instances and not in others. That's why it's called a "TEST" -- it invalidates some laws but not others. To assume otherwise is, well... if not drivel, it's danged illogical.

Saying that O'Connor's review of the Strict Scrutiny Affirmative Action test in the Michigan case makes her "inconsistent" is just wrong. That's not an "opinionated" statement -- it is applied logic. She applied a test, and found it came down one way or another. In another instance, it would come out the other way (as was the case in the Michigan duo of cases). Absent other evidence, that alone cannot be "inconstancy."

As I said, I'd love to read some real reasons to support traditional marriage. It would make me feel better that there are 2 sides to the issue. But, the article you posted made statements that were simply wrong.

Sorry if that makes my opinion "the only one around" -- I hope not.

i just don't get it. a certain straight, conservative group tries to make a banning law against those who are not straight. why should they have any power to make others in their image. Mind you that I am straight. I find it icky to see gay tenderness yet I DO NOT WANT TO DISCRIMINATE. everybody is going to be different one way or another. let's not ban details and all these little differences. stop wasting time making silly laws on just because someone is different. lets concentrate on REAL ISSUES like making the economy better, bringing back our troops from Iraq, feeding and schooling our children, and making good social relations with other countries.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Here's a really off the wall idea - get rid of the idea of marriage from law altogether. Let it remain as a religeous ceremony - as it is a religeous concept. That way church and state are further separated. Now this does not mean tearing down family values or such, but removes the legal discrimination that having laws for marriage creates. It will put a dent in Las Vegas' economy, but hey. Come to think of it, there will be a cut in the divorce law sector too... [img]smile.gif[/img] NOTE: I am not arguing against morals or any such, just the discrimination marriage creates and the "benefits" it excludes people from.

This is actually a great idea ... at the first look
Marriages have always been religious ceremony's. The only interest the state takes in marriage is to deal with the issues that arise if two people get into a relationship this deep. To provide for children ...
Now - you can't ever hinder gay people from getting married in an abstract way (i.e. setting up a ceremony and making vows to each other). What you can hinder is

a.) special treatment that legally married couples receive from the state
b.) religious marriages blessed by a certain religion (if the pope says "NO" there won't be catholic marriages for homosexuals)

So the major problems that arise if two homosexuals decide to "get married" are
a.) They may not get the same legal treatment as a married heterosexual couple
b.) They may no get blessed by their chosen religion (e.g. the catholic church)
c.) They may offend people who think that their ceremony is a mocking of the idea of marriage.

The first two issues I do not consider grave.
a.) Even if there was no special legal treatment I'd still want to marry my girlfriend some day. It's a matter of love not of legal advantages.
b.) If your lifestyle is opposing the values and teachings of your religion you have to change either your lifestyle or your religion (that can also mean still going to church and praying but disagreeing with that one point and thus not really practicing the whole religion but rather your own interpretation of it). This may be tough but it's not seldom that you have to take tough decisions in such delicate matters.

The third issue now is troublesome because other people are affected. If two people disagree on a religious topic there can be bloody murder. However many (sadly not all) people in the world by now have learned that you can just "leave be" what does not concern you directly even if you disagree as long as no direct harm comes to anyone.