Constitution Admendment to ban gay marriage?

[Rokenn]

Seems the repugs think we need to ammend the Constitution since they are so deathly afraid of gay marriage. bleh

Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Sun June 29, 2003 12:57 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down sodomy laws that made it a crime for gays to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.

The court's decision was applauded by gay rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned sodomy laws in 13 states.

Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures.

"That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said

[BaRoN NiGhT]

r u not afraid? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

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

[Night Stalker]

Well, thank God that Constitutional Ammendments need a 2/3 majority to pass.

This sort of stupid thing does NOT belong in the Constitution!

Originally posted by Rokenn: Seems the repugs think we need to ammend the Constitution since they are so deathly afraid of gay marriage. bleh

Just out of curiosity, have you even tried to understand what it is about gay marriage that the "repugs" are worried about? Do you ascribe it to plain and simple bigotry? or perhaps maybe they are looking at a deeper issue?
Im just curious what you think.

Personally I am against gay "marriages" but not against gay relationships [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a repug but am a Conservative. I understand where some of the people are coming from and what they are trying to prevent. I also believe that they are trying to maintain the greater good as they see it.

It should not come to a constitutional ammendment however the supreme court (the same court so very many claimed to be a Republican COnservative sham that stole the election from the dems and liberals) have allowed things to go to such a degree that it is now the only option...and probably will not happen. Basicly as I see it, this is the end of "Marriage" as it has been known for more than 200 years. The term will now have no real meaning and any two people shacked up will have to be given the same rights and priveledges.

At any rate, I don't believe you could get congress these days to agree by a 2/3 majority that day is light and night is dark let alone make this ammendment.


[ 07-01-2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Sir Taliesin]

It will never happen. The Republicans are keeping their base happy. It will never come to a vote. The polls are against them on this one.

[ 07-01-2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[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.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by MagiK: Just out of curiosity, have you even tried to understand what it is about gay marriage that the "repugs" are worried about? Do you ascribe it to plain and simple bigotry? or perhaps maybe they are looking at a deeper issue? Im just curious what you think. Personally I am against gay "marriages" but not against gay relationships [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a repug but am a Conservative. I understand where some of the people are coming from and what they are trying to prevent. I also believe that they are trying to maintain the greater good as they see it.

MagiK - could you expand on these deeper issues and what the Repubs are trying to prevent? I would be very interested in hearing what they are. I agree that it is more than just simple bigotry. Disapproval or a moral objection to homosexuality (or any other sexual immorality) is not the same as being bigoted towards it.

So I would like to know what other issues are involved and how they affect the Repub (or Conservative) POV.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Just out of curiosity, have you even tried to understand what it is about gay marriage that the "repugs" are worried about? Do you ascribe it to plain and simple bigotry? or perhaps maybe they are looking at a deeper issue? Im just curious what you think. Personally I am against gay "marriages" but not against gay relationships [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a repug but am a Conservative. I understand where some of the people are coming from and what they are trying to prevent. I also believe that they are trying to maintain the greater good as they see it.

MagiK - could you expand on these deeper issues and what the Repubs are trying to prevent? I would be very interested in hearing what they are. I agree that it is more than just simple bigotry. Disapproval or a moral objection to homosexuality (or any other sexual immorality) is not the same as being bigoted towards it.

So I would like to know what other issues are involved and how they affect the Repub (or Conservative) POV. [/QUOTE]
I will try to find time to summarize the issues. but in short it is wraped up in how our nation, state, economy, tax structure and many other factors are intertwined and it isn't even mostly about gay marriage. It is about the institution of marriage vs single and how these are viewed. Thats not a very good synopsis but it will have to do for now. Gotta run...toodles.

This isn't exactly what I was looking for, but will give you just some of the issues in question. It is from NRO and is in Frums Diary. I will get to the more detailed thing later.


The consequences of the Supreme Court’s sodomy decision are somewhat more certain than the resolution of the drug benefit. The court could have written quite a constrained opinion – one that accepted as valid precedent the right to privacy created in the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases of three and four decades ago, and then used that judge-made right to strike down a Texas morality statute that just about everybody agreed was ridiculous. Instead, Justice Kennedy produced an astonishingly open-ended opinion, that seemed to treat as a constitutional offense almost any attempt by a state legislature to enact traditional sexual morality into local law. It’s hard to see how Justice Kennedy can from now on consistently vote to uphold any state law that distinguishes one kind of sexual relationship from another. He’s driven onto a highway with no exit ramps.

Fortunately, Kennedy’s accompanied by Justice O’Connor, who is untroubled by qualms about consistency. Just as she was able to endorse racial preferences in theory while condemning them in fact in the University of Michigan cases, so she may yet somehow find some way to reconcile the sweeping anti-traditionalism of Lawrence v. Texas with a vague feeling that, say, same-sex marriage goes too far. Or not. With her, who knows? But if she should retire between now and the time that same-sex marriage comes to the court, and if she is replaced by a judge with similar values but a more logical mind, then it is hard to see how the Supreme Court can possibly stop itself before it arrives at the same destination at which the Canadian courts have arrived.

[spydar]

I fail to see what the huge issue is. why shouldn't anyone, no matter their sexual preference, be given the same rights as everyone else, including the right to get married if they please? now maybe it's cause I'm not a religious person (I believe fully in god but not in institutionalized religion), but why does this topic never fail to get everyone and anyone in a big tizzy? it's none of my business if john doe is gay and wants to get married, I say kudos to them. now if the issue is should their marraige be recognized by whatever church they belong to, well thats between them and their pastor, but I am fully against the government restricting certain groups from anything.