Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread

But womberty, you surely recognise that marriage has some sexual aspect to it; and therefore, that to deny it to gay couples is merely to disapprove of their practices?

 

See, I don't HAVE to defend them.

Theres no need.

No matter what, people will believe in what they WANT.
Whether or not its true.


Defending my position is pointless since, its just an opinion anyways.

...I do still have the right to an opinion without having to defend it right? ?

 

You don't have a right to tell us your opinion unless you back it up.

If you have nothing to back it up, keep it too yourself.

 

But womberty, you surely recognise that marriage has some sexual aspect to it; and therefore, that to deny it to gay couples is merely to disapprove of their practices?

But marriage is still given to heterosexual couples who engage in "deviant" sexual practices.

And the fact of the matter is, the marriage laws say nothing of sex or sexual orientation; they just limit the unions according to the genders of the partners.

So, the question would be, why is marriage offered and why is it restricted by gender?


No matter what, people will believe in what they WANT.
Whether or not its true.

You don't think there are any people who will evaluate the merits of the arguments on both sides of an issue before making up their minds?


I do still have the right to an opinion without having to defend it right?

Not in a debate. This is not, to my knowledge, an opinion-sharing session. It is a forum for explaining what you believe and why. If the basis for your belief is challenged, you must defend it, or admit that it has no merit as a logical argument.

 

I think a Constitutional Amendmendment against gay marriage would be a law that goes against everything this country (and the Constitution) stands for: freedom, liberty, and justice. The fact that there would be a federal mandate that a certain group of people cannot marry takes us back to the days of a certain group(s) of people that cannot vote or own land.

The viability of gay marriage as a safe and healthy relationship (for both partners as well as children) is not the issue here, because there are tons and tons (for lack of real #s) of children in the child social services system that are there because of heterosexual marriages that resulted in a breakup or death of one or both spouses (among many other reasons, but that is certainly one). Marriage itself is, as I understand it, a contract between two parties, recognized by the law, so that in the event of a breakup or a breach of the contract, the law can step in and assign blame, distribute property ($$, house, car, alimony), give tax breaks, assure coverage of insurance for both parties, etc.

It makes absolutely no difference to me who (and I'm talking between humans over the age of 18) gets married to whom. I would be happy if there were more gay marriages and those marriages provided safe and healthy homes for all those children out there who have been abandoned or orphaned who need homes. It is far less likely for a heterosexual couple to seek adoption as a primary source of child-rearing, unless they know that they are unable to procreate.

I think, in the end, it comes down to the same emotion that made laws against blacks and women voting, blacks and women owning land, women having high-paying/ranking jobs: fear.

Just my 2 cents.

EDIT: Also, religion should not even enter the equation because, although the source of the "contract" is in the Judeo/Christian tradition, modern marriage "contracts" are devoid of religion because you don't need a clergy member to get a marriage license and you don't need a judge to get married in a church.

 

Okay...

What about a ban on interracial marriage?? What about a ban on interracial sex??

I suppose that wouldn't be discrimatory either *rollseys*

Denying gay people the right to have sex IS discrimination!! It is denying them one of the most basic human rights.

Denying black people the right to vote, by Branthoris' logic, isn't discrimination. It's making an ACT illigal. It's not like its a ban on being black, it's a ban on the act of a black person voting, therefore not discrimination *rollseyes*

Don't be so damn foolish and ignorant.

 

Branthoris, I don't believe in originalism, and I don't believe the founders did either, so your entire point is moot as far as I'm concerned. Jefferson and Marshall had this argument two-hundred years ago, Marshall won, and it would take an act of pure unbridled power to strip the Constitution down to what it meant back then.

The Constitution is an idea, that's the whole point, the whole reason the original framers preferred not having any amendments. IN the end the compromise was to be that the amendments weren't meant as laws per se but SAFEGUARDS against the legislature, to ensure that rights were not encroached upon. Madison's number one fear against drafting any amendments was that people like Branthoris would incorrectly interpret the Constitution to mean that ONLY the rights discussed therin are the ONLY rights gaurunteed.

Furthermore, his analysis of the judicial structure is just plain wrong. He seems to forget that the STATE CONSTITUTIONS endow certain rights upon citizens, so if a judge determines that a law is in violation of the STATE constitution, it is valid.

Of course, he claims that the constitutions, state or federal, can only be interpreted as it was originally interpretted. THis is again completely impossible. Whose originalist interpretation of the constitution do you take? Men like Madison who believed that the constitution shouldn't be limited by amendments? People like Jefferson who wanted a strict interpretation? People like Washington who viewed it as a compromise?

Thus, Branthoris claim as to how the Constitution should be viewed is as old as the constitution itself, but what he forgets is that the argument for a living breathing constitution as a framework for freedom is just as old, it's the most workable, and that it would be impossible to turn the clock back 200 years to overturn Marbury v. Madison. It's almost like saying we should go back to adhering to the Articles of Condfederation, or that we should ignore any amendment after the first 10. It's been debated and defeated, and strict constructionism hasn't been good U.S. law for 200 years.

Thus, in San Fran, a judge could determine that Gavin is right, that equal protection means equal protection. They gave those rights to everyone, including gays.

That's what happened in Massachusetts. The Court is the final arbitor of what the State or Federal Constitution (respectively) says is legal.

Thus, a constitutional amendment would be the only way to gauruntee discrimination in all fifty states.

Let me tell you what, no matter what your view is, you should be pushing for this to be a state matter. Why is this even a federal issue?

If Massachusetts says that gays are privileged with equal rights in their state, so be it. Of course, I agree it leads down a prickly path, since DOMA is clearly unconstitutional. But let the process play itself out, and let this cursed amendment fail.

 

There should not be any amending of the U.S. Constitution to "defend marriage".

Statists last tried to use the document for prohibition and it didn't work. This will not either.

The government should regard all unions between consenting adults the same.

 

What's wrong with saying that a certain law as written contradicts a constitution as written?

All it means is that you didn't mean that constitutional protection to be as universally egalitarian as it sounds, and you just need to rewrite it to include the discrimination you really wanted.

 

Womberty.

*applause*

That was perfectly and succinctly stated. It's been a pleasure watching you further cultivate your discussion skills.

 

KD i thought the discussion was about gay marriage not gaysex?
one thing i love about the gay marriage people is that is is ok to mention interracial couples to show one extreme to prove thier point but it's not ok to mention 3 people marrying to show how marriage could become a joke if it's not between one man/one women.

 

As I have already said, marriage is not granted or denied based on the sex that the partners will or will not have.

Was Christopher Reeve's marriage voided when his injury paralyzed him from the neck down? Would a paralyzed person be able to marry? (I doubt such a marriage could be annulled for lack of consummation, either, because the partner could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of sexual activity at the time they entered the marriage.)

Marriage != sex.

So, why does the government recognize marriage, and why does it limit it based on gender?


EDIT:
one thing i love about the gay marriage people is that is is ok to mention interracial couples to show one extreme to prove thier point but it's not ok to mention 3 people marrying to show how marriage could become a joke if it's not between one man/one women.

Right now, a person can get married on a drunken bet in Vegas.

A person can be married and have a number of affairs.

A person can marry for money, and laugh about it on national TV.

A person can marry and divorce as many times as they want.

But somehow, if you let two people of the same gender marry, then marriage will become a joke?

 

so because some people like you mentioned don't respect it let's just throw out all the rules.let their be man/man, woman/women, woman/woman/man, man,man,man, shemale/man.who cares?

never knew a princple had to be 100% followed perfectly by everyone for it to be kept.

 

Hooray for clear-cut discrimination!

Malshabek:
Because its not possible to raise a healthy family is any such enviroment where the children are raised by parents who have emotional or psychological issues.

So, people who suffer from depression shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Also, homosexuality is not an emotional or psychological issue.

You just can't GET the same kind of emotionally stable person from a gay marriage that you can from a man/woman marriage.
It harms the children.

Prove it. I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. Furthermore, I have seen evidence indicating otherwise.

Don't think of it as the government picking on gay people. Think of it as the government preventing the general colapse of the family structure. They are doing it for the children's sake.

They're a bit late for that. You need to prove that homosexual parenting is harmful.

Tell you what, google psychological effects of gay marriage on children and find out for yourself JMT.
Unless you really dont want to know and oyu just want to remain convinced of what you believe. You wouldn't be the first to ignore the facts...

What facts? I tried looking for how gay parenting is harmful, but all I could find was evidence to the contrary. Point me to these studies. I'm not going to do your research for you.

I've stated my opinions. This is what I accept as fact.
just as you accept the opposite as fact.

And your truth is different from my truth because there is no real truth, so black is white, and married men can be bachelorettes.

...I do still have the right to an opinion without having to defend it right?

If you're going to get involved in a discussion like this, wrong. If you're not going to back up your views, don't bother us with them.

STARBOB:
KD i thought the discussion was about gay marriage not gaysex?
one thing i love about the gay marriage people is that is is ok to mention interracial couples to show one extreme to prove thier point but it's not ok to mention 3 people marrying to show how marriage could become a joke if it's not between one man/one women.

Yeah, we're all a bunch of mindless drones without the capacity to think for ourselves. Seriously. Morally and legally speaking, I have no problem with polygamy. It's not my thing, just as homosexuality isn't, but I'm a firm believer in the consenting adults argument. What's your point?

so because some people like you mentioned don't respect it let's just throw out all the rules.let their be man/man, woman/women, woman/woman/man, man,man,man, shemale/man.who cares?

Why not?

Seriously, I have yet to see a compelling argument. All I've come across is prejudice without support.

Why do we need this amendment? What threat is there to this nation that can only be averted by adding a definition to the Constitution? Why is this in our country's best interest?

 

What's wrong with saying that a certain law as written contradicts a constitution as written?

Nothing, that is called the process of judical review.

And I agree completely, the issue should be a state issue, under the established procedure.

Except that's not what happened here.

After all the cheering has died down, people are finally realizing the long term results of Newsome's actions, and that they could go either way.

What is even more perplexing, is that as a law student, you don't even recognize the fact, OWM..

What should have happened was this:

1)original lesbian couple in San Francisco applies for marriage license.

2)Application is denied, because such a marriage is invalid under CA law.

3)Newsome files suit (using the original action as the test case) in CA court to get prop.22 overturned, on the grounds that it is a violation under CA's equal protection clause.

4)Court rules either way, based on the applicable standard.

This is the process that Womberty described above.

If the above was followed, the "pucker factor" would not have been immediate, and, at the very least, in 3 months, California would have its Vermont-style civil union statute.

However, this is what actually happened:

1)original lesbian couple in SanFran files for license.

2)Newsome, because he doesn't agree with the law, directs the city to violate it, and issues the license, as well as to anyone else who applies.

3)The court, furthur ignoring the law, fails to stop the illegal process, claiming "because at some point, the law MAY be invalidated."

4)As a result, every one of the licenses issued are currently invalid, because the court has not addressed the constitutionality of the law, but has failed to halt the illegal proceeding.

That is unheard of, that a court would proactively order legal redress, without first ruling on the violation of law.

As a result, Newsome got just what he wanted. He forced the issue prematurely. However, the result may, or may not, be what he intended.

If he would have just waited until a VALID Mass. same sex marriage license was issued, there would have been a automatic challenge to the DOMA (as we all knew there would be), but under established precedent.

Newsome artifically forced the issue into the federal level, leaving no other choice but a federal response.

 

Well, property laws and such would get really really messed up if we allowed unlimited polygamy, not to mention a bunch of other laws.

Gay marriage, if treated the same as straight marriage, will have zero major conflicts of law.

 

not george lucas ,what gives you the right to define what a constenting adult is.by your arguements your denying someone his/hers civil rights because of his/her age.so what gives you the right?

 

not george lucas ,what gives you the right to define what a constenting adult is.by your arguements your denying someone his/hers civil rights because of his/her age.so what gives you the right?

What?

Seriously. Split up the words, look into capitalization and spacing, and get back to me. I don't understand you.

 

I THOUGHT you would avoid the question and you did. Thanks for not disappointing me.

 

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," Mrs. King said in 1998, according to Reuters news service. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

 

John kerry says the same thing about gay people. john kerry doesn't believe in gay marriage.

 

It took me a while to notice it, but mr. Bush did not end his speech with "God bless America". Strange.

 

I THOUGHT you would avoid the question and you did. Thanks for not disappointing me.

If you would ask a coherent question, I'd answer it. I'm not avoiding anything.

 

I'LL try one more time and i'll try not to make any errors in spelling or grammer so my friend ngl can understand.

NGL, what gives you the right to define what a consenting adult is. Please explain to my simple mind.

 

so because some people like you mentioned don't respect it let's just throw out all the rules.let their be man/man, woman/women, woman/woman/man, man,man,man, shemale/man.who cares?

My point was, it's already a joke, so it doesn't make sense for anyone to say that allowing gays to marry will turn marriage into a joke.

As for your "shemale" comment, don't you think someone who has had a sex change should be considered their assumed gender for all intents and purposes, including the ability to marry someone of the opposite gender?


And I agree completely, the issue should be a state issue, under the established procedure.

Except that's not what happened here.

After all the cheering has died down, people are finally realizing the long term results of Newsome's actions, and that they could go either way.

If you're talking about the effects on other states, then it still would have come up if any state started offering "marriage" to gay couples (as is on the table in Massachusetts).

As for Newsome's disregard for the law, I do think it hurts the cause; however, didn't the renewed discussion of a federal marriage amendment start in response to the case in Massachusetts? Isn't that a case of judicial review? If so, then why aren't the states and the president content to let the process be carried out?


If the above was followed, the "pucker factor" would not have been immediate, and, at the very least, in 3 months, California would have its Vermont-style civil union statute.

California already has domestic partnership laws, and was considering "civil union" laws that would probably have extended even more benefits. However, the question should be what would happen if a state started recognizing gay marriage. You don't think an amendment might be proposed regardless of the process?


Well, property laws and such would get really really messed up if we allowed unlimited polygamy, not to mention a bunch of other laws.

So what's the justification for messing them up in the first place by recognizing marriage?


what gives you the right to define what a constenting adult is.

The law defines a legal adult for all intents and purposes under the law. With very few exceptions, a person is always either a minor or an adult.

A minor is not considered capable of consenting to any contract, so it makes sense that they are not considered capable of consenting to a marriage contract. But where is the precednet for limiting a person's ability to consent to a contract based on their gender?