Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Feb 24, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    I agree with Kimball, this flaunting in your face attitude by the pro-same sex marriage people, is bound to offend some people.

    And the active bigotry (don't you dare edit this KK, this is very apt) of those who are for the discrimination and denial of liberties by denying same-sex couple marriage licenses offends many people. [face_plain]




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

  2. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    JFT, marriage is a right granted by the state, not a liberty.

  3. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    So we should have unisex bathrooms?

    Yes.

    One commode, one sink (one urinal optional), behind one door. None of these communal toilet facilities.
  4. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    JFT, marriage is a right granted by the state, not a liberty.

    So it is a right then? ?[face_plain]




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

  5. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    all federal law says is that a marriage in one state has to be recognized by another

    Womberty, where does it say this? I would have to question this statement, taken the way it is presented..
  6. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    What is the difference between civil rights and civil liberties?

    Civil liberties: limits upon government power to balance freedom and order
    Civil rights: rights granted by the government


    Civil rights are rights granted to you by the government. An example of this would be being able to drink at 21 years of age. If the government so chose, it could outlaw the consumption of alcohol (it did before, but that is a side issue). In context, civil rights for gays would mean the ability to enter into civil unions or marriage.

    Civil liberties are rights inherent in each individual that the government does not have the power to take away. An example of this would be the government not being able to discriminate based on race. In context, an example of this would be gays ability to do whatever sexual acts they please in privacy without government interference.


    I hope that cleared your question up.




    *Edit*
    Womberty, where does it say this? I would have to question this statement, taken the way it is presented..

    Federal law doesn't say that. I think Womberty is thinking of the Constitution's requirement that one state's laws and contracts have to be observed by other states. I posted the excrept from it a few pages back.



  7. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Federal law doesn't say that. I think Womberty is thinking of the Constitution's requirement that one state's laws and contracts have to be observed by other states. I posted the excrept from it a few pages back.

    Yes, its commonly called the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    However, not everything is automatically included under this. Court judgements are, regulatory functions are not.

    For instance, a speed limit in one state does not have to be honored in all states.

    Or a firearm permit for one resident, does not have to be honored by all states equally..

    Marriage has not yet been determined to fall under FF&C either way, so we don't know how it would apply..

    (Womberty and I have discussed this before, so I wanted to find out if that's what he meant this time..)
  8. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Jediflyer

    I thought it was the other way around for liberties and right. ?[face_plain]

    Damn, it's been too long since I've had an American Politics course. :p




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

  9. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    No, you should be able to do a google search and find a good american politics ap site.

    Remember, liberty is usually defined as being free of governance such as freedom of speech while a right is something the government grants or enforces such as voting rights.

  10. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Trips:

    I'm still waiting for you to explain how gay marriage hurts you.

    And I'm not considering myself stopped. I've got just as many votes as you do. Fortunately, so do gay people.

    this flaunting in your face attitude by the pro-same sex marriage people, is bound to offend some people.

    Homophobia offends a lot of people, including me, and I'm straight.
  11. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    anikan_girl, there is a difference between fear and disapproval. I think you would get farther in your arguments if you recognized that fact.

  12. Obi-Ewan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2000
    star 4
    Rush Limbaugh said the most absurd thing on the radio today. He said it was out of line for liberals to point at the high divorce rates of the conservatives backing the amendment, because divorce doesn't undermine marriage, since it doesn't result in fewer marriages. But gay marriage somehow would, simply by aloowing same gender couples to do it. Just so you don't miss it: divorce does not undermine marriage, despite the fact that it's breaking that vow that says till death do we part.
  13. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    This, my friends, is an example of a battle in the Culture War.

    For those of you that think the Culture War is a myth, take a look around.
  14. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Anakin_GIlr said

    I'm still waiting for you to explain how gay marriage hurts you.

    I don't have to explain that to you. That is my perrogative.

    And I'm not considering myself stopped. I've got just as many votes as you do. Fortunately, so do gay people.

    And so to do Christians and COnservitives and Moderates and Independents and Muslims, all of whom are going to see this thru. Oh wait....thats right, we Christians should recuse ourselves from this, should'nt we?

    Homophobia offends a lot of people, including me, and I'm straight.

    More people are going to come down on my side then yours on this.
  15. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Obi-Ewan: You want my opinion on Flush Limbaugh, click on my bio. ;)

    Jediflyer: Just because you or I disapprove of something doesn't give you or I the right to tell other people they can't do it when no one is being harmed.

    I disapprove of eating veal and lobster, but you don't see me trying to get those two foods outlawed, do you?

    TripleB:

    I don't have to explain that to you. That is my perrogative.

    And you used to accuse KR of banning you because he "couldn't respond to your arguments"?

    Pot, meet kettle.
  16. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    A constitutional amendment is a bad idea. Even if you don't approve of a gay lifestyle, that's no reason to deny them equality. We don't discriminate based on race or gender anymore, so why worry so much about what turns other people on?
  17. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Jediflyer: Just because you or I disapprove of something doesn't give you or I the right to tell other people they can't do it when no one is being harmed.

    I disapprove of eating veal and lobster, but you don't see me trying to get those two foods outlawed, do you?


    No, being in a democracy gives us the right to tell others what to do (as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights, in our case). As far as I am aware, banning fish or turkey isn't going against the Bill of Rights.

    But I would say that it is stupid and mean to ban something that doesn't cause harm.

  18. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    AG said

    And you used to accuse KR of banning you because he "couldn't respond to your arguments"?

    Pot, meet kettle.


    No, he would ban me because I trumped him on the argument ,and his way out of it was to ban me and delete my posts that were proving he did not know what he was talking about. Of course he denies this.

    And I certainly have not banned anyone for disagreeing with me either.

    My personal thoughts on anything are my own personal business, or thought policing now part of your job description.
  19. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    But I would say that it is stupid and mean to ban something that doesn't cause harm.

    At least no living creatures died in a vat of boiling water so that gay people could marry.

    No, he would ban me because I trumped him on the argument ,and his way out of it was to ban me and delete my posts that were proving he did not know what he was talking about. Of course he denies this.

    Yes, he does--because it's bull.

    I've been friends with him for three years--never knew him to give an unfair ban.
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I seriously doubt KR did anything of the sort.
  21. dizfactor Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 5
    I don't have to explain that to you. That is my perrogative.

    well, no, actually, if you're claiming that you're being harmed, you do need to explain how exactly that's true.

    And so to do Christians and COnservitives and Moderates and Independents and Muslims, all of whom are going to see this thru.

    well, Christian conservatives and religious Muslims I'll give you. the more libertarian, less religious wing of the conservative movement is less inclined to see this as a big issue, and while most moderates and independents are not in favor of gay marriage, they're also not terribly comfortable with endorsing an amendment to the Constitution banning it.

    besides, look how far things have gone even in just a few years. all but the most radical conservatives have accepted domestic partnerships and civil unions, whereas they were very controversial just a few years ago. momentum is on our side here, and the push for a Constitutional amendment is a sign of the desperation of the conservatives. it's a classic overreach, and it will end up backfiring on them like the Gingrich revolution of '94 and the impeachment process of '98 did.
  22. Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 4
    diz, if there's so much public support, how come y'all must go through non-democratic means of judicial activism and a rogue mayor to get what you want?

    When liberal California in a popular vote upholds the current definition of marriage in a 2-to-1 margin...
  23. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The following piece is from Armstrong Williams, an African-American commentator:

    Homosexual right to marry? not in our democracy
    Armstrong Williams

    February 24, 2004


    Ever since the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's Nov. 19 decision to legalize same-sex unions, the nightly news has been saturated with images of gay couples rushing to the altar. This sickens me.

    I am not alone. A recent Zogby poll indicated that 70 percent of Massachusetts's citizens do not favor the decision allowing homosexual couples to marry. And it's not just Massachusetts. Recent polls by "The New York Times" and CBS News and one by "USA Today" and CNN, all found that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose the legalization of homosexual unions.

    Not surprisingly, respondents were uncomfortable with the Supreme Court redefining one of the fundamental building blocks of our culture - marriage. And rightly so. Appointed judges effectively short-circuit the democratic process when they assert their will on the culture. That's plainly the case here, as the judiciary used grand ideological sweeps to invent a new constitutional right.

    This, the U.S. Constitution has never allowed. Thankfully, there remains room for the democratic process to play out. According to the Zogby poll, 69 percent of Massachusetts's voters favor an amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision can be viewed as an extension of recent case law that carves out constitutionally protected space for homosexuals. During their last term, the U.S. Supreme Court used vague concepts of personal autonomy to invent a fundamental right to engage in sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas). The justices grounded their decision in the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment, which declares that states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." Precedent dictates that the due process clause protects only those liberties that are "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." Though no one would say that the right to engage in sodomy is deeply rooted in the American tradition, Justice Kennedy did argue that Americans have traditionally been free to engage in intimate relations in their own bedroom free of government regulation. In his majority decision, he extended that same liberty interest and privacy right to homosexuals.

    Just one thing - there is also a long tradition in this country of using moral codes to prohibit conduct deemed immoral by the majority of the citizens, as evidenced by restrictions against prostitution, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. As Justice Scalia tersely noted in his dissent, Texas's anti-sodomy laws is "well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' by a court that is impatient of democratic change." In other words, the matter of homosexual rights should not simply be dictated by the whims of appointed judges.

    The judiciary should always be sensitive to leaving room for democratic debate on issues that are bound up in complex notions of morality, religious belief and personal autonomy. This is when the court is at its best - when its decisions spill out of the courtroom and stimulate earnest and important debate and legislative decision making. This is the democratic process. And it is ripped to shreds when the judiciary uses fiat to impose their own views about what our law should be, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did when they legalized homosexual unions.

    ©2003 Tribune Media Services

  24. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    I love how my points about marriage always being fluid and in flux have been completely ignored [face_plain]
  25. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The following is the full text of Bush's speech today (Admins, if you wish to cut and paste this to my first post in the thread, please do so, thanks):

    Raw Data: Text of Bush's Speech
    Tuesday, February 24, 2004

    Following is the full text of President Bush's speech supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004:

    GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

    Thank you. Please be seated.

    Good morning.

    Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

    The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

    Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

    In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

    In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

    A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

    And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

    After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

    On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

    The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

    Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

    Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

    Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

    Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

    For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

    An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

    The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.