Gay Marriage Ammendment

[svosen]

Hmm...

Interesting debate. I'm certainly against gay marriage, but I tend to hesitate at the notion of a constitutional ammendment against it.

Allowing the federal government to have control over one aspect of the citizens' private lives (marriage) could be the first step onto a slippery slope.

What do you guys think (not necessarly about gay marriage, but about the ammendment idea)?

[nice shirt]

My thoughts on gay marriage: Who cares? If 2 people love each other, who gives a shit if they are the same sex/race/creed/etc etc... I think "marriage" as a whole is pointless anyway...

[Magoosh!]

Yea,I really dont give a shit.

I think they should ban marriages that consist of dumb sisters and pyscho cops.

[Hans Limbtaker]

My oldest brother Franklin is a homosexual. He and his partner Thomas have been together for 12 years. That is a longer union than most heterosexual couples who married. Statistically, 3/4 of today's marriages end in divorce, and the majority of Americans who divorce today - the problem stems more from the women's movement in the late sixties and early seventies. Women before this time, were all virtually housewives and workers along side of their husbands in the fields. It is a domino effect. WWII was the largest turning point in the lives of women in this country. They held America together and kept it running while the men were at war. They found a new sense of purpose and realized that they could do more than rely upon a husband and his philandering ways while they nurtured the children and tended house. This all came to a head during the women's movement and the ERA. Now, it has blossomed into a demented orgy of self indulgence and askewd views of what their role in society and relationships is 'suppose' to be. They are trying too hard to keep up with men and prove themselves as capable or be the same as men. Most marriages either end because of infidelity or financial problems. Historically, homosexuals were considered and were (and still are to an extent) very promiscuous. However; you look at gay men who are in relationships. They both work. They are usually professional, educated, and strong members of the community in which they reside. Most of these relationships are long term once a commitment is established between them, so in all honesty, why would the government wish to step in and tell them what they are doing is morally wrong by our country's 'Christian" standards? If that is the case, what ever happened to the separation of church and state? The government should not be able to pass judgement on what it considers morally right or wrong, and that is exactly what they are doing with this amendment.

[Norrec]

I'm completely against the ammendment, and my opinions completely agree with niceshirts.

If same-sex marriages were banned, then it would no longer be constitutional, because that would mean religion has played a part with government. Marriage today is a legal thing. And my words in this last section make no sense to me now that i go back and read them, but i know what im talking about..

[Punk]

Originally posted by nice shirt
My thoughts on gay marriage: Who cares? If 2 people love each other, who gives a shit if they are the same sex/race/creed/etc etc... I think "marriage" as a whole is pointless anyway...

I totaly agree

[Matthew S.]

The whole issue is semantics. Although Bush may base his opinion on his religion, it's also simply because "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The union is sacred to heterosexuals and by allowing homosexuals to be married, it is taking the meaning out of marriage.

This is the reason most Democrats also oppose gay marriage, but support "civil unions." See the simple change of wording there? Marriage has always been viewed as a bond between a man and a woman and the country wants to keep it that way. I would agree that civil unions should receive the same rights and benefits as any marriage.

[Cowboy22]

I usually support President Bush, but this is one area where I am completely against him. I really don't see how it's any of governments business if homosexuals choose to express their love for each other in the greatest way possible, which is, of course, marriage. It's not as if they're marriage somehow harms anyone in any way shape or form. Now were the so-called Civil Union (and why not just call it marriage, honestly, what's in a name? Their union being called the same hardly makes the union between a man and woman less sacred...) WERE given the same rights has a married couple, as Matt suggests then I suppose I wouldn't see anything wrong with that.

[Odin]

While I have significant qualms with Limbtaker's assertion that feminism yielded an "orgy" of immorality, I'm going to try to dance around those concerns for now--in a very homosexual fashion--and keep my discussion relatively focused on gay marriage. I think my position is pretty nuanced and seemingly contradictory, so I'm actually going to take a little while to explain it. I hope I don't come off as a waffler like that ****er John Kerry.

I'm actually against same-sex matrimony at this point. I think what Gavin Newsom has gone and done in San Francisco is irresponsible and unbecoming of an elected official, for one thing, and for another I think it's cruel to use the real aspirations of homosexual couples to wed as a political stunt. I think his intentions are good, but the way he went about challenging the law by executing an end-run around the state code was childish and unacceptable.

But Gavin Newsom's antics only represent one facet of the debate, not a microcosm of the issue that faces the nation. Essentially my problem with the notion of gay marriage is that marriage isn't really a civic entity; it's an invention of the church, and as such I don't think it ought to be subject to political alteration. That said, in my ideal society, in my utopia, men and women of any sexual orientation would be able to wed, and there would be no church, but that's neither here nor there. At this point, the country isn't ready to redefine the institution of marriage. I think that's what it comes down to. There are too many people in this country who rightly or wrongly believe that matrimony is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, and that the recognition of homosexual unions by the church would represent an assault on the sanctity of that bond. I happen to disagree, but I'm not a part of the church.

I think the real issue here isn't one of marriage; it's one of human rights. Some states don't even recognize civil unions, and I think that's reprehensible; that needs to change, and it needs to change immediately. That would satisfy my concerns surrounding the constitution's equal protection clause, and apart from granting gay and lesbian couples the basic civil recognition of their heterosexual counterparts, I'm not too gung-ho on recognizing gay marriages because of the needless strife they would generate in the country, which is already painfully divided the left from the right. That said, it gives me pause when I consider that in our secular society marriage isn't the religious property it used to be, and in some cases I think 'civil unions' are all most heterosexual marriages amount to in the first place. It's a thorny issue, but I don't think it warrants tinkering with tradition.

In light of those concerns, I think amending the constitution to smother the issue is absolutely ridiculous. For one thing it would never be ratified--the constitution is maddeningly difficult to change--and for another, if the federal government doesn't have the authority to spell out what constitutes marriage, it certainly doesn't have the authority to spell out what doesn't. That's for the church and the states to decide. I think the legitimization of gay marriage is inevitable in the future, but now isn't the time.

[Arnold K. (Admin)]

Originally posted by Magoosh!
Yea,I really dont give a shit.

I think they should ban marriages that consist of dumb sisters and pyscho cops.

Yeah.