Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread

Like you argue anakingirl.What people want doesn't make it right.

 

Again i say because reality tv is mocking marriage does that mean it means nothing now and should have no bounds?

It demonstrates that marriage is already treated like a joke, so it seems absurd that you would be concerned about letting gays marry turning it into a joke.

Also, the fact that no one has suggested legal action to further restrict the bounds on marriage to keep things like reality TV marriages and drunken Vegas weddings from being valid proves that the people opposed to gay marriage are really not concerned with keeping marriage from being considered a joke.

Furthermore, you have failed to show how allowing monogamous gay partners to have legal recognition of their union would make marriage a joke.

Wouldn't a serious commitment between gay partners be better for the institution of marriage than weddings based on a TV competition?

Wouldn't a serious commitment between gay partners be better for the institution of marriage than those two partners finding members of the opposite sex to join them in a sham marriage?

Wouldn't a serious commitment between gay partners made public promote monogamy, rather than the assumption that all gays are promiscuous?

 

I'VE worked with a gay woman for 20 years now. She has had the same parnter the whole time and is a good person.I support civil unions but the label marriage should be for a man and woman. That's my final word today. I don't take any of the arguements perssonally and it has been a fun debate.

 

Surely it's patently clear that this entire brouhaha had more to do with the traditionalist opinion that homosexuality is an immoral abomination than any legal wrangling or Constitutional originism.

That's the heart of the matter, and that's what needs addressing - the fact that a large proportion of everyday people actively encourage or support an institutional discrimination.

[edit - I can't sepll]

 

I support civil unions but the label marriage should be for a man and woman.

Why, from the government's standpoint, should "marriage" only be for a man and a woman?

And why does the government have any reason to recognize any "marriage"?

 

And why does the government have any reason to recognize any "marriage"?

For tax reasons dude. It all comes down to taxes.

 

The government actually takes a hit when it comes to taxes for many married couples. It loses out whenever one spouse earns the only income and claims the other as a dependent, and it doesn't get to collect the inheritance tax when the spouse inherits.

So financially, the government has an incentive not to recognize any marriages. Why does it give up some financial benefits for marriage in the first place?

 

Because marriage has always been seen as the bedrock of a stable society, ie property gets shared amongst two families, thus building a social equity matrix.

It's an old idea and one that does work, as long as individuals aren't concerned with their individual happiness, hence divorce, polygamy etc are also frowned upon

 

If you support civil unions but oppose gay marriage, that means that you know discrimination is wrong but want a Clintonian way to eat your cake and have it too.

 

Because marriage has always been seen as the bedrock of a stable society, ie property gets shared amongst two families, thus building a social equity matrix.

And if it's about the joining of two families, why can't that be accomplished by the joining of two people of the same gender?

 

I can't believe some people think that gay marriages are BAD. I liked that the San Francisco judges had the guts to make gay unions legal. And now an amendment? Bush is desperately trying to grasp some votes IMHO.
Come on we're in the 21st century. I can't believe people are shocked... If they want to commit to each other why not? That's what marriage embodies to me, 2 people in love with each other wanting a commitment for life.
SO honestly who cares for their sex?

 

If you support civil unions but oppose gay marriage, that means that you know discrimination is wrong but want a Clintonian way to eat your cake and have it too.


No, what it means is that you think marriage is a religious issue which the public happens to subsidize for the benefit of society. You think gays should have a chance at being subsidized also, but it goes against the principles of your religion to have gays get married.

OWM, you are on the logical side of the argument. Be careful not to lose the high ground by trying to bite off too much at once.

 

What does it matter what century it is?

womberty
Why does it give up some financial benefits for marriage in the first place?

Dude, the single people get the shaft in our society...period.

If you're poor and single.....god help you.

Why should we even have a amendment to the Constitution? It's unecessary.

Marriage shouldn't even be a state issue. It should return to where it belongs.....community churches, Las Vegas, etc.

 

You think gays should have a chance at being subsidized also, but it goes against the principles of your religion to have gays get married.

Going against the principles of a religion isn't enough for a law.

Adultery is against the principles of some religions. Where are the laws against adultery?

Pre-marital sex is against the principles of some religions. Where are the laws against pre-marital sex?

Interracial marriage was considered against the principles of some people's religions. What happened to the laws against interracial marriage?

If it's about the government threatening to violate the principles of your religion, the answer should be to take the government out of marriage once and for all - not to create some attempt at separate but equal unions for gays.

 

Here is some interesting information from the latest edition of Newsweek, which arrived today:

...By the weekend, the gay-marriage brushfires seemed to be spreading, with mayors in Chicago, Salt Lake City, and Plattsburgh, NY chiming in that they, too, like the idea of same-sex marriage licenses (although only San Francisco, with its unique status as a city and a county, could actually issue them)...

And to address Trips constant misuse of something I said:

A heterosexual, Jesuit-educated, Irish Catholic son of a prominent state judge, Newsom is an unlikely bomb-thrower. The welathy 36-year-old wine and restaurant entrepreneur with movie-star looks took office only seven weeks ago. He received at best moderate support from the city's gay community in his narrow December victory over a Green Party opponent. But Newsome stunned even his closest aides when he returned from Bush's State of the Union address last month, saying he was appalled by the president's comments about preserving the "sanctity or marriage," if necessary, by a constitutional amendment. "I had just taken an oath of office not to allow discrimination," Newsome told NEWSWEEK. "It was pretty darned clear what my obligations were."
...
The mayor's "take it to the people" strategy turned the city on its head. In contrast to the flamboyance of some gay-pride events, the overflow crowd at city hall was remarkable for being so ordinary. Mothers pushing strollers stood behind dads with infants strapped to their chests; seniors mingled with businessmen; elderly parents struggled with their corsages and brothers-in-law fiddled with their video cameras, while children slid across shiny marble in their dress clothes. "We're not scary people," said Susan Trainor, a health-care-company manager waiting to marry her partner of 10 years, Ann Harty. "We just want what everyone else wants."

And also in a related article in the same edition of Newsweek:

While critics contend that same-sex weddings will destroy the "sanctity" of traditional unioins, researchers say that it's actually heterosexual couples...who are redefining marriage--not only in this country but throughout the Western world. Over the past few decades, they've made walking down the aisle just another lifestyle choice.
...
Scholars say the evolution of marriage is nothing new; it's an institution in constant flux, always responding to the particular needs of each era. "Throughout much of history, if you acted like were married, then you were treated like you were married," says Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State University, a historian of marriage. Religion, a major part of the current defense of traditional marriage in this country, didn't even enter the picture, Coontz says, until the ninth century, and then only to prevent Eropean aristocrats from marrying close relatives. The goal was not to stop incest but to make sure noble families didn't consolidate too much power. (Commoners could still hook up with anyone they fancied.)

Even a century ago...marriage was hardly the stuff of hearts and flowers. In this country, women were essentially the property of their husbands, with few rights. If an American woman married a foreigner, she lost her citizenship; a man who did the same kept his. Until the 1970's there was no concept of marital rape because husbands "owned" their wives' sexuality.


It seems as though what we see in these articles are a continuing shift in the definition of marriage. A shift that has been going on for over a millenia. It's a natural aspect of human society to shift definitions to match the realities of the world in which they live. Creating a constitutional amendment to move backwards in the fight for increased freedoms and rights seems antithetical to what this country is supposed to be about.

 

I'm not surprised by much of the reaction here.

It is representative of the minority in thought in American society.

To deconstruct marriage is regressive, not the other way around.

Item: there is no inherent right to marriage (e.g., it isn't a human right).

Item: Society has the right to define marriage how it sees fit without revoking human rights.

Item: Judges and radical mayors are overturning the will of the people based upon arbitrary opinion.

Item: The DOMA will probably be overturned by the courts ('full faith and credit') therefore negating any States' rights on the issue (as the Dems love to espouse Federalism, now that it suits their cause).

Item: The democratic process and Amendment of the Consitution is the only way left to ensure marriage remains what it is and not redefined.

 

Democrats reply on CNN

 

You see, Vagrant, this is going to haunt the Dems in November.

No southern US state is going to vote for a national party or candidate that does not fully oppose gay 'marriage'.

 

Funny Mischievious how conservatives don't flinch at modifying the Constitution when it suits their ends, but condemn the dems when they do so.

You want to preserve marriage? How about supporting its return to communities instead of governments?

That's what the founders had. Were they evil and in a state of moral decay? No. They had wedlock.

Marriage is a state issue. Wedlock is not.

Abolish marriage.

 

No southern US state is going to vote for a national party or candidate that does not fully oppose gay 'marriage'.

I don't know. Is this going to be the decisive issue for this election year? It certainly is an easy one with which to polarize voters.

Reminds me of some Dylan lyrics:
Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect

 

Going against the principles of a religion isn't enough for a law.


I'd agree with that, Womberty. However, if something is going against the principles of your religion, you shouldn't be expected to endorse it. And marriage is effectively an endorsement by the public of that special relationship.

And if you are not getting your fill of the issue here, check out Andrew Sullivan for letters from a bunch of people from differing positions on this issue. For those of you who don't know Andrew Sullivan, he is a gay Republican blogger (and a very popular (or at least well read) one at that) who has supported President Bush in the past.

 

Item: there is no inherent right to marriage (e.g., it isn't a human right).

Good - so there should be no problem dropping it from all government recognition.


Item: Society has the right to define marriage how it sees fit without revoking human rights.

But it does not have a right to discriminate in the definition if that violates a state constitution.


Item: Judges and radical mayors are overturning the will of the people based upon arbitrary opinion.

Radical mayor I'll give you (and there is only one in question), but judges?

You give the judge a constitutional amendment saying that discrimination based on race and gender is not allowed, and then a lower law discriminating on gender in issuing marriage licenses, and what is the judge supposed to say? Wink at the state constitution because we all know no one really meant there should be no discrimination based on gender?


Item: The DOMA will probably be overturned by the courts ('full faith and credit') therefore negating any States' rights on the issue (as the Dems love to espouse Federalism, now that it suits their cause).

It's good to know that some conservatives are admitting that full faith and credit would require gay marriages from one state to be recognized in another.


Item: The democratic process and Amendment of the Consitution is the only way left to ensure marriage remains what it is and not redefined.

Well, you could turn the definition of marriage back to the people - but that would guarantee that it would be redefined over time.


However, if something is going against the principles of your religion, you shouldn't be expected to endorse it.

Where the principles of your religion contradict the principles on which this country's laws were founded (namely, equal individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), perhaps you should be expected to keep your religious principles for yourself and not impose them on everyone else.

 

Womberty, by definition, you cannot impose by withholding.

 

Granted, defining marriage as one man and one woman does not effectively impose Christian principles on everyone. It does not force anyone into marriage, nor does it prevent sex outside of marriage.

However, what I mean is, a person should support laws that follow the principles of equal rights, not laws based on religious principles. Religious principles are for self-government.

 

Where the principles of your religion contradict the principles on which this country's laws were founded (namely, equal individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), perhaps you should be expected to keep your religious principles for yourself and not impose them on everyone else.

Hold on a moment.

Basically what you are saying is that my beliefs shouldn't matter in a public forum because they are religiously-based, while someone else's beliefs (even if identical to mine) should matter because they are not.

I'm sorry. No way is that right.

For example, my religion teaches that alcohol is bad for you. If my state were to propose a law limiting the sale of alcohol between certain times (say 12am and 10am), what should I do? If I support it because of my religious beliefs, then by your comment I should keep out of the discussion entirely.

But how about if I support the law because my grandfather was an alcoholic and I saw the damage it did to his family? How about if I support the law because of the medical data on the effects of alcohol?

What makes either of those reasons better than the religious belief? Why should a person holding one view be told to basically "shut up" in a public forum, while others with the same purpose are allowed to speak?

Just because someone supports something because of their religious beliefs does not mean that they should be told to butt out of politics. (As I recall, Dean said he signed the law about civil unions in Vermont because of his religious beliefs.) Religious beliefs are no less valid of a reason to support a political measure than anything else.

Kimball Kinnison