Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread

I meant it only as a clearification issue simply about regression, since you didn't realize that it had that meaning. People use it all the time to define some kind of societal breakdown (e.g., we're regressing into a valueless society, and so on).

Sure, some individuals would like to define marriage as an all-encompassing thing that includes both hetero- and homosexual couples, but marriage is plainly not defined as such in the law, by tradition or by society as that is what this argument is about.

 

But the "unraveling" thing - help me understand that.

Did you catch my edit?

 

All that is meant by 'unravel' is to basically un-define marriage, unravelling it's traditional meaning into a new form. It was simply utilized as a metaphor.

 

But if you feel something is wrong, does that make you a bigot? Free choice cuts both ways for both groups.

No, but trying to force your beliefs on someone else--as this border guard was doing--makes you a bigot.

 

yesterday i was watching crossfire on this very issue.THE gay marriage supporter said you can't write discrimmintion into the constitution by banning gay marriage. I LOVED the republican senator response. HE said if you consider that discrimination then there is already discrimination in the constitutin. THE amenament that says no foreign born person shall be an american president is discriminating agaisnt all those people who have been productive good citizens of this country but are not allowed to seek our top office.
argue why we can discriminate against foreign born citizens in the constitution but not gays?

 

No, but trying to force your beliefs on someone else--as this border guard was doing--makes you a bigot.

Hold on. I don't see where he was trying to force his personal beliefs on anyone.

What most likely happened is that they tried to use documentation relating to their "married" status to reenter the US. However, since the US does not recognize their marriage, they were using the wrong documents, and so by standard procedure would be denied entry until all the paperwork was taken care of correctly.

The same thing would happen is a man were to try to enter the US with two wives. The US would not recognize the second marriage, and that person could not legally use the paperwork to enter the US as a spouse of the man. They would have to do so as an individual.

What should the border guard have done? Allowed them to use the wrong paperwork out of protest and then put his job on the line? If he had done so, he would most likely face some form of discipline (including jail time), especially after events like 9/11.

I don't see how you can fairly call him a bigot.

Kimball Kinnison

 

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...

i didn't say gay marriage was popular. i said it was, overall, more popular than before (perhaps less popular now than this last year, but that's a bump in an overall upward trend) and i said that a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was unpopular. acknowledging that gay marriage is unpopular doesn't mean that i believe that an anti-gay marriage amendment would find support, simply because most people outside of the Christian right don't see it in the same apocalyptic, black-and-white, all-or-nothing, win-at-all-costs light that the radical right does.

also, it's a question of vote-counting in legislative bodies. in such a narrowly-divided House and Senate, i doubt any such amendment would get off Capitol Hill with the necessary 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. while the voters even here in California are 2-1 against, it would be the state legislature that decides it, not a popular referendum, and not only does that popular split not really show up in the established legislative body, it's not a make-or-break issue for most Californians, who don't tend to base their votes primarily on social issues. things like taxes, immigration, education, etc, are much bigger issues than gay marriage as far as most people's votes for state government are involved, even now.

so, it's unlikely that a Constitutional amendment will pass, which means that gay marriage in the near future will be legal in at least one state, probably a few more. then DOMA will be challenged under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which could go either way, since historically states were not generally forced to honor marriages that violated their own laws on miscegenation and consanguinuity, and as a result it's not a slam-dunk for the gay marriage lobby. even so, legal rights for gay couples are expanding in more and more states, and, importantly, being pro-gay legal rights is increasingly being seen as being pro-business and pro-development, which means it will continue to gain ground especially with local governments. inch by inch, the culture will just get more and more used to the idea and the opponents will get more and more marginalized. it will take time, but it will happen.

All that is meant by 'unravel' is to basically un-define marriage, unravelling it's traditional meaning into a new form.

but the "traditional" nuclear family structure is only about 200 years old by the most generous definition. social institutions change into new forms all the time. we don't have to run around like Chicken Little about it.

 

THAT mass supreme court said the terms for marriage are 2 consenting adults who love each other should not be denied to marry. I wonder if they would marry a 22 year old and 42 year old that are mother and son. SICK as it would be if they wanted to do it, it would fit the courts standards of marriage.

 

anakin_girl:

Bubba, I linked to that article because it mentions the Baptist minister who encouraged people to picket Matthew Shepard's funeral and started a website called godhatesfags.org.

Yeah, but the mainstream Christian community rejects Fred Phelps' teaching the way it also rejects opponents to abortion who take matters into their own hands -- and the way environmentalists ought to (but don't) condemn those who commit acts of terrorism in the name of their cause.

Apparently, even Jerry Falwell has called the moron "a first-class nut."

If you think for one second that Phelps is anywhere near the mainstream, I have to question whether your view of mainstream Christianity is based on anything resembling reality.

You mention that he's a Baptist minister, but his church is not aligned with any denomination.

Consider what Phelps has said about the Southern Baptist Convention, the very convention that encouraged boycotting Disney:

May 17, 1999

The Southern Baptist Convention has become a target of anti-homosexual agitator Fred Phelps for failing to condemn churches Phelps identifies as "openly and notoriously promoting the modern militant homosexual movement" in America. Phelps pastors Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., which is not aligned with a denomination, and stages public protests throughout the country against individuals, churches and corporations he perceives as supportive of homosexuality either through their actions or inaction....

SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land described Phelps? views "a blasphemous contradiction of Christ's message of redeeming love as supremely revealed in the person and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ."

Land added, "These twisted, sub-biblical perversions of the Christian faith are particularly dangerous in an increasingly biblically illiterate society that has only a cursory and decreasing knowledge of the Bible's content and teachings."

Land noted, "God does not hate anybody and God would never countenance the use of a demeaning and derogatory word like 'fag' to describe a human being for whom his Son died. God loathes and detests homosexuality, but God loves the homosexual..."

?Fred Phelps Is Not One of Us,? declares a story in Jerry Falwell?s National Liberty Journal in May.

Falwell wrote, ?While we fully oppose the acceptance of abhorrent sexual behavior, we must also reach out with compassion to these individuals who are lost in their sin. Rev. Phelps has apparently forgotten that we are all sinners in need of redemption in Jesus Christ.?

The National Liberty Journal stated, ?We implore members of the media who cover topics relating to religion and sexuality not to portray Phelps as a voice for America?s Christian community. He does not speak for us, and he does not speak for any branch of Christianity.? [link]

He's boycotting us. Need more evidence?

The difference between Fred Phelps and Southern Baptists is vast, Midwestern's Roberts said.

"[Phelps] has a heretical position, because indeed we are commanded to go and make disciples of all people," he said. "That means all religions, ethnicities and moral categories [while] realizing that all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Phelps' position is non-biblical in both its "posture and attitude," Roberts added. [link]

Again, anakin_girl, I don't see the point of bringing it up.

You seem to suggest that the behavior of this one extremist somehow justifies antipathy towards all Christians in this debate, that there's some "slippery slope" between Phelps and mainstream Christianity.

Okay, fine. Two can play at this game.


Rolling Stone magazine had a story last year on gay men who actively sought to become infected with HIV.

Carlos is part of an intricate un

 

I dont think that the vast majority of the people have a problem with Gay couples, but instead they have the problem with the term Marriage being used, lets just call it a civil union and give them all the same rights.

 

No, but trying to force your beliefs on someone else--as this border guard was doing--makes you a bigot.

Would left wing Teacher and Educational Unions (Nea, AFT, etc) forcing a left wing ciriculum upon our nations school children at tax payer expense count?

 

liberalmaverick:

You cannot make the assumption that marriage would lead to sex. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that stipulation in the UK is not in the USA Code, and there are no sexual requirements to get married. Two people can have sex without being married, and two people can be married without having sex. The two are not linked.

The two are linked because marriage officially sanctions a sexual relationship between two people. The implication is that a sexual relationship leads to sex. If there is no link at all between marriage and sexual intercourse, then why did English law until very recently not prevent a husband from raping his wife? (Note: English law prior to 1776 is relevant to the United States.)

But assuming, arguendo, that marriage does not carry any implication or presumption of sexual intercourse between the partners, my point still applies: denial of gay marriage is not 'discrimination' (in the commonly used sense of the term) because it disapproves of homosexual actions, not a homosexual person's inherent nature. After all, for gay marriage to be possible, they have to have formed a sexual relationship with another person of the same sex.

Just as the law can disapprove of people who have committed theft and murder without being unacceptably 'discriminating', so it can disapprove of people who have formed homosexual relationships without being 'discriminating'. That they may have an uncontrollable urge to form homosexual relationships is (just as it is in relation to rape) neither here nor there.

anakin_girl argues that:

Without going into detail here, but if you criminalize a particular sexual practice, and that is the only practice a gay couple has to express their love for each other sexually, whereas straight couples have other methods, then you are discriminating against gay couples.

But that is nonsense. Even if a paedophile were only attracted to children, he would still not be discriminated against by laws against child abuse. Even if a person were unable to achieve sexual arousal by any method except stealing property, he would still not be discriminated against by laws against theft.

It is not discrimination to ban gay sex; and ergo, it is not discrimination to deny official sanction to gay sex by disallowing gay marriage.

 

Amendment not likely to pass in my estimation. Even GOP senators oppose this route.

 

It's a stupid idea anyway. People's private lives should be just that...private. The government would be foolish to waste money, manpower, and resources enforcing such a discriminatory measure.

 

But assuming, arguendo, that marriage does not carry any implication or presumption of sexual intercourse between the partners, my point still applies: denial of gay marriage is not 'discrimination' (in the commonly used sense of the term) because it disapproves of homosexual actions, not a homosexual person's inherent nature. After all, for gay marriage to be possible, they have to have formed a sexual relationship with another person of the same sex.

But if you assume that marriage does not carry any implication or presumption of sexual intimacy, then a marriage between two members of the same gender (termed a "homosexual" marriage because of the gender, not the sexual orientation, of the partners) is being disapproved because of the potential spouses' genders, not any sexual actions.

Can a man who has been paralyzed from the neck down marry a woman?

Can a man who has been paralyzed from the neck down marry a man?

In both cases, it's a fair assumption that the married couple will not be having sex; however, I'm fairly certain that the first example would not be denied a marriage license on those grounds. So what would be the reason for refusing the marriage license in the second case?

 

it's ok for the constitution to discriminate against foreign born us citizens by not allowing them to seek this lands highest office but you can't put a marriage amenadent?

 

it's ok for the constitution to discriminate against foreign born us citizens by not allowing them to seek this lands highest office but you can't put a marriage amenadent?

i don't think it's OK, personally. i would be in favor of an amendment to remove the requirement that the president be born in the US. i would probably scrap the age requirements, too, while i was at it.

in any case, they aren't really the same issue.

another article on the prospect of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

How are they not the same issue?

 

This is not a battle conservatives can win. Not only will this amendment fail, but it may even help deny Bush a popular victory again.

 

We shall see.

 

Mischievious, you said this last night.

"Marriage has been such for the last 200+ years of this Republic and for thousands of years before that."

Now that is just empty rhetoric. The first americans *did not* embrace the institution of state-sanctioned marriage, but that of wedlock through their community churches or religious sects.

Today's state marriage institution forces the couple to become licensed and bonded *by the state*.

Big difference.

Either we allow ALL consenting adults to enter into legal contracts of their choosing, or we abolish the state's involvement.

Choose.

 

SHANE! THANK YOU! Finally, someone sees it my way. Yes, those are the only two options I see.

The thread I started on that subject was derailed, but I am just curious as to how the conservatives, say Bubba, Kimball, or DM, feel about that.

Why not relinquish marriage to religion? Why not remove the state interference in marriage, and ONLY offer domestic parternship benefits to couples, regardless of their religously married status? You know, like a civil license. Any two people can get one. If you want to get married you go to your priest.

Would such a compromise really be so bad? I think it strengthens the 1st amendment.

 

I'll be honest, I do support the idea of offering some sort of "civil license" to any two adults (including non-sexual relationships, like two old maid sisters), but I am quite reluctant about altogether abolishing the legal promotion of marriage as is currently defined, because society is more than just a population of consenting adults. Society includes children, most of whom were brought into this world by heterosexual intercourse, and most of whom would be (statistically speaking) better off being raised by both their biological parents in the same household.

It strikes me that most of y'all don't really address the potential effects on children, despite the fact that children have been negatively effected in a significant way, the last time marriage was significantly changed (no-fault divorce laws). And when y'all do address it, it seems like more of a political tactic to shut us up than something you actually believe.


Now that I've been honest, I would love to see some honesty from y'all.

Either we allow ALL consenting adults to enter into legal contracts of their choosing, or we abolish the state's involvement.

Two consenting adults already can enter any legal contract of their choosing. Surely you see that. If you want to make your lover your heir and give him power of attorney, you can find a lawyer and do so.

What's not true is that consenting adults can enter a contract issued by the state and then dictate to the state the terms of that contract.

And why must we have that?

I don't think that we must; even most gay-marriage supporters at least say that the contracts they support would be limited to two people at a time.

Even if we can disagree, this sort of issue ought to be handled by the legislatures and not the courts, since there's no right to demand the state whatever contract you want in whatever terms you want.

 

People's private lives should be just that...private.

Which is why no one on here is calling for a return of sodomy laws. But marriage is emphatically *not* private, it is public. It would represent a full endorsement of gay relationships instead just letting things be.

Sorry, I don't endorse the Newspeak definition of "tolerance" as "wholehearted affirmation."

The government would be foolish to waste money, manpower, and resources enforcing such a discriminatory measure.

How? By just giving marriage licenses to men and women? Isn't that what they already do anyway?

 

Just to let you know, your "just letting things be" is extremelly harmful to many, if not every, homosexuals.

And the government would spend time and money when thousands upon thousands of sues would be filed against it for endorsing a discriminatory law and letting it into the constitution (well, assuming that's possible in thw amerscan law system).