Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread

Breaking News:

In a press conference today, President Bush anounced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the US Constitution which would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and will be the only form recognized with in the United States.

In my opinion, this brings the discussion to a whole new level, and I thought it warranted a new thread on this specific and important Constitutional issue. It is now outside of the discussion of what to do about it, and now a pro and con issue on Amendment of the US Constitution.

Discuss.

I will simply state here that I'm in favor of the FMA, as I believe the cornerstone of society is marriage. The government has no compelling interest to officially recognize and sanction any type of relationship other than traditional marriage as it is vital to society for a variety of reasons, including giving the best possible environment for the raising of children, among other things. There is no inherent human right for anyone to marry within the US Constitution, so to prevent further skewing of the law and deconstruction of marriage, the FMA is the only viable alternative to prevent activist courts and radical mayors from simply imposing their own arbitrary will upon the people. Society has the right to dictate recipients of priviledges while not revoking human rights. Marriage is by definiton and societal sanction between a man and a woman only, and society has the right to dictate such. There are no special human rights granted by marriage, only special priviledges. Married persons are recipients of the benefits of the priviledge because their success is vital to the stability of society.

KK EDIT: Locking so it can be restarted due to bug in the boards.

 

Wouldn't the other 'gay marriage' thread work for this?

 

The official endorsement of the Constitutional Amendment brings the question out of that arena into a much more substantive and focused debate.

I think a new thread specifically about the Constitutional issue here now at hand is warranted.

Now, it's not 'what should we do about it', it's are you for or against the FMA, why are you for or against it, and do you think it will pass...

 

There is no inherent human right for anyone to marry within the US Constitution, so to prevent further skewing of the law and deconstruction of marriage, the FMA is the only viable alternative to prevent activist courts and radical mayors from simply imposing their own arbitrary will upon the people.

Interesting thoughts, DM.

You are correct, there is no inherent right to marry within the US constitution, so why do we simply assume that marriage is reserved for between a man and a woman? Does amending the constitution only define the issue, or does it grant a right?

I think this is a terrible idea. For the first time in history, a document seen by many as a freedom charter will be used to discriminate against a group of people who are simply different.

I have yet to see how gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage in any way, shape, or form. This should be up to individual states, and I do not believe it will gather enough votes even in the senate to go forward.

As I stated in the elections thread, this can only hurt the president, either with moderates or conservatives, no matter which path he chooses.

Peace,

V-03

 

Alright, in his speech, the President said that there was an "overwhelming consensus" regarding states that have their own versions of DOMA.

I would like to see a list of those 38 states. I suspect, that those 38 states are a) most likely the same states that Bush won in 2000, and b) make up about half of the seats in the House of representatives, hardly an "overwhelming consensus." I need to find out though, so if anyone has a list of those states, I'd be most pleased.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

38 States have laws banning gay marriage.

That's 3/4s of the States.

It is my estimation that the FMA will pass.

 

<img src="http://www.marriagewatch.org/images/domamap.gif">

This map is a little outdated because Ohio has since passed its own DOMA.

I'm going to leave this thread open for a bit, but if it starts to converge with the other thread, one of them will be locked immediately.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: I will also add that just because a state is dark blue on that map does not mean that it will not ratify the amendment (just like just because it is light blue does not mean it will ratify). Massachusetts and New York both have actions being taken now, but not finalized yet.

 

Its so surreal aving CA on that map (and even more surreal living there ^^'''')

I just want to point out that this would be a non-issue except for the actions of Gavin Newsom. But thats for the other thread.

 

This puts the Democrats at an interesting and unenviable position.

Do they support the FMA and alienate certain parts of their base but support the majority who believes marriage is between a man and a woman?

Or..

Do they opppose the FMA and come to be viewed as pro-gay marriage and alienate the majority?

 

I do not believe this is a Democrat v. Republican issue. I'm a Republican, and I totally disagree with the DOMA and FMA.

Maybe we'll see a shift in political boundries much like what happened after the Civil Rights Movement. After that, many people shifted parties, becuase it had less to do with party identification and more to do with what one thought was right.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

I don't see this blowing up the way people think it will.

Kerry has the centrist moderate position on this one. No to Gay Marriage, Yes to Domestic Benefits, and No to a Constitutional Amendment.

Bush, backing an amendment, runs the risk his predecessors did ten years earler when they declared this culture war, only to have it backfire.

People who are only want a full blown constitutional amendment won't be voting for Kerry or Edwards no matter what they do. Heck, people who want this amendment wouldn't vote for the Dems even if the DEMS supported this amendment.

Thus, I see this as Bush firing up his base, yes, but alienating the moderates who put Bill Clinton in office.

 

Nice way to dodge the issue over this, OWM...

 

Gays deserve the right to get married, I hope this bill fails and I hope the Supreme Court rules that gays cannot be arbitrarily discriminated against by religous zealots.

 

Its nice to see that this new thread hasn't degenerated into baseless stereotyping already..

 

Gays deserve the right to get married, I hope this bill fails and I hope the Supreme Court rules that gays cannot be arbitrarily discriminated against by religous zealots.

So, would it be ok for them to be arbitrarily discriminated against by secular zealots?

How about religious moderates?

Secular moderates?

Why is it necessary to specifically label those in favor of such an amendment a "religious zealots"? Are so many people in this country so fanatical about their religious beliefs that you need to use such a stong term to describe them?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well this is nice. Here's to the destruction of the USA. I'm all for it.

To clarify, amending the constitution may seem like a great idea to all of the sheep (conservatives and liberals alike) that support this, but in actuality it's going against what the constitution is. It's not about taking away rights from people but giving them to the people. This is a dangerous course and I fear that more prejudice will be legislated into our constitution after this. So I say here's to hoping our destruction is quick and painless. Considering who's in charge it'll be slow and painful.


Why is it necessary to specifically label those in favor of such an amendment a "religious zealots"? Are so many people in this country so fanatical about their religious beliefs that you need to use such a stong term to describe them?


Yes, religious zealots for the conservatives and hypocrite *****es for the liberals that support this.

 

"but in actuality it's going against what the constitution is. It's not about taking away rights from people but giving them to the people."

I totally agree. The Constiution is supposed to be about Giving rights, or at least enabling them, but not Taking them away. This can do nother but cause even more division, discrimination, and yes destruction.

As I mentioned in the other thread:
What is the harm in letting two consenting adults do what they want? Traditional marriage will remain the same & even all marriage within certain churches can stay the same. Just because a marriage is recognized legally doesn't mean that any private church has to recognize or condone it.

Therefore I think this should be left as a state issue.

 

I totally agree. The Constiution is supposed to be about Giving rights, or at least enabling them, but not Taking them away. This can do nother but cause even more division, discrimination, and yes destruction.

Don't you understand? Some couples are more equal than other couples.

 

Well, everyone I know is Religous, Kimball, save for one hard core liberal friend who is a proud athiest.

I am just convinced people are hiding behind their religion, for the most part, in order to justify such obvious bigotry.

The fact that so many conservatives now seem more open to civil unions and domestic parterships for gays helps convince me that it isn't about equal rights, per se, most conservatives and zealots realize that they can't really be against basic domestic rights for all citizens.

It's just that y'all don't want to gays to "join your little club," or be accepted as a valid lifestyle, choice or not, in mainstream America.
======================================================
Steven Colbert's report on the daily show said it best: "No, when my 3rd wife and I decided to get married, it was specifically for the purpose at thumbing our noses at gays. I mean, whats the point of getting married otherwise? Our union becomes MEANGINGLESS if two gay people are allowed to enter into the Union!"

Jon Stewert: "Well, since you are in favor of strengthening marriage, why not go after the REAL cause of the breakdown of marriage, and pass a constitutional amendment against adultery?

Steven Colbert: WHOA WHOA, EASY comrade! We don't want the governmetn sticking its big nose into our private affairs now do we! This may have been a good idea in Soviet Russia, but my god Jon, this is still America!
======================================================

Thus, I renew my previous assertion that gay marriage in no signficant way affects straight marriage.

Why?

1. People who believe marriage is a sacred union will believe so with or without a ban on gay marriage. We can all agree that the pope isn't going to declare hetero-unions invalid if gay marriage is legal.

2. People who support gay rights will only be positively affected by abandoning this discriminatory practice..

Thus, this whole thing comes down to "values." The rule of God governs your soul, not your neighbors soul.

In a free and just America, I don't see how anyone can justify denying same sex partners the same benefits as hetero partners.

 

Don't you understand? Some couples are more equal than other couples.

It's this sort of logic that's very popular here. That's sad. I hope you were joking.

 

Having been monitoring the news that makes its way over the pond on this whole area, I find it amazing you lot are making such a fuss over this, but that was last week!

A constitutional amendement on this? For real? You lot are sure about this aren't you? Because I cannot see this being anything other than a huge heap of trouble.

I'll also get the popcorn and beers in and watch the show!

JB

 

Furthermore, the fact that an amendment is NECESARY tells me more. It tells me that conservatives know they can't win this battle in the courts (I mean, even with the conservative leaning Supreme Court that put Bush in office, with a majority of its justices appointed by Republicans), because in their heart of hearts they know its wrong.

In your heart of hearts, with whatever soul god gave you, you know that discrimination like this is wrong. You now have become aware that discrimination is indeed against the principles of this nation, and the only way to justify and legalize your intolerance, prejudice, and discrimatory mind is to alter the framwork of freedom to allow discrimination against gays.

If gays don't have the right to marry, if it isn't a matter of basic rights, why do you need an amendment? I mean, sure Massachusetts ruled one way, but you could always pass a State constitutional amendment, or you could trust in the courts and wait a few years to see how DOMA or the mini-Doma's play out.

Perhaps, just perhaps, its ok to let a state or two like Massachusetts condone gay marriage and for the rest of the 49 states to oppose and it and not recognize it. Then, we can take a look at Massachussetts in several years, and states and people can use the state as a labarotory of democracy, which is really what the founders intended.

If you need a constitutional amendment for it, that means you KNOW you need to re-write the constitution in order to further your anti-gay agenda.

 

I agree-creating amendments to DENY rights to people is wrong.

If this passes, I will be extremely disgusted. I also forsee a MAJOR backlash if it does. People are not going to take this lying down.

I think we're going to see a movement like the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties. People are fed up with homophobia-and they're not going to take it anymore.

 

Isn't there a repealing process that can take place if it's unconstitutional?

 

There's only been one Amendment to the Constitution that has ever infringed on the liberties of the people, and that was the 18th Amendemnt, Prohibition.

Amending the Constitution to infringe on the liberties of the people is morally reprehensible, and anyone who supports this should be ashamed of themselves.

How dare you? How can you even get up in the morning? or are you all so morally bankrupt that discrimination doesn't bother you in the least?

If I could, I'd spit on every last one of you.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!