Do you support a Constitutional Amendment recognizing marriage as a union between a m

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Sophora
....To make a constitutional issue of it gives it more value than it is worth. Give them legal rights but let marriage be in God's eyes and the churchs. Kep the feds outta it.

Hi Janine, SISTER!

Good point, didn't know you were a thinker. LOL


Cook

[namgrunt]

Sophora
A problem exists if a "alternate lifestyle" couple is married in one state, lets say Massachusetts, which condones the union, then moves to another for unforseen reasons, Texas for instance, which doesn't recognize their "status" as a wedded couple. It is a legal matter in both cases, but it remains a states' rights issue. The couple can't have their cake and eat it out of town.

[Sophora]

Originally posted by namgrunt
Sophora
A problem exists if a "alternate lifestyle" couple is married in one state, lets say Massachusetts, which condones the union, then moves to another for unforseen reasons, Texas for instance, which doesn't recognize their "status" as a wedded couple. It is a legal matter in both cases, but it remains a states' rights issue. The couple can't have their cake and eat it out of town.

I agree with you. If they want to be married in a state that allows it they need to stay there. They shouldn't have the right to move elsewhere and demand that they get legal reconisition in a state that forbids it.

Sparrowhawk: I'm only a thinker when my mind is clear, which is less often as each day passes

[greensideout]

If you really shake this thing out it leeds you to the one big question---"What is Holy Matrimony".

My view is this---

A three way agreement between a man, a woman and God.

The latest news is saying that GWB is considering contracts for the folks of a "different life style" but not marriage.

[snipowsky]

Do these politicians have nothing better to do with their time? I have an idea, instead of wasting time on amendments for gay rights or sick sh** like that. How about you focus on something like VETERAN'S RIGHTS and how veteran's all across the USA are being screwed over by the VA on a daily basis.

I have a solution for gay marriage and gay rights...Ma Deuce would like to direct a "comment" towards them and she's not very happy!

[cadetat6]

Don't forget, the Roman Empire went down this road and see where they are to-day

Cadet

[GySgtRet]

WOW.......!!!!!....NAMGRUNT,SOPHORA,

I couldn't have said it better. I don't think that the bFederal government has need to change the constituion about this. If that happens in my opinion then other articles governing my freedoms will be at risk. If a state wants to change and recognize "alternate lifestyle" then let the states deciede this not the FEDERAL government. Drifter. Glad to see you back in the mix. I am proud to know that you are related to our great president.

Just my two cents worth ladies and gentlemen.

Semper Fidelis

[GySgtRet]

NO I would not support this I forgot to say that above.

Semper Fidelis

[gwladgarwr]

Originally posted by Sophora
I agree with you. If they want to be married in a state that allows it they need to stay there. They shouldn't have the right to move elsewhere and demand that they get legal reconisition in a state that forbids it.

There's a problem with demanding legal recognition for what's allowed in one state and not recognized in another: under the "full faith and credit" concept of the Amendment, what is recognized/allowed in one state MUST be honored in another state, even if that right or privilege or judicial decision (Article 4, Section 1) is not offered or protected in that second state. Furthermore, "equal protection" has just gone out the window. Since same-sex marriage is a state-level issue that is not reserved by the Federal government (as such decisions governing such an issue have been regulated by a Federal law called DOMA, which follows, becomes unconstitutional in that it violates Amendment 10 (powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution but also not denied to the States, are reserved by the States, or the "people" [referendum].)

Whether or not laws passed in 37 states are unconstitutional with regard to civil rights (for now such laws are kosher since DOMA allows them) is almost beside the issue. The other Constitutional issue is actually States' Rights, and the Federal government has just taken a power away from the States AND from the people of all those States to make such a decision whether same-sex marriage should be recognized in those states (10th Amendment).

But, pushing aside religious claims, our Constitution does not recognize "religious" marriages. All marriages are of a civil nature in this country (separation of church and state - which also means government at the state level as well as Federal). Those who are officially empowered by the state (i.e., Iowa, Maine) to officiate in a marriage ceremony may or may not be clergy of some sort, but it's not required, either. A ceremony is also not necessary since once a marriage license is issued, it only takes a state official or state-appointed and approved individual to certify a union and the license. In other words, churches have no say who can get a civil marriage, but their clergy are not forced to perform a ceremony for ANYONE - even if they are empowered by the state to provide that service. (Individual religious rights prevail in this case.) You can always find another clergyman to perform a ceremony, or get a civil official. Churches don't have to do crap for you. The State Comptroller or city clerk does.

Opponents of states allowing same-sex marriage complain that one state would be obliged to honor that kind of marriage from another state under "full faith and credit" as well as under the 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments, which is true. Hello!! It's called "equal rights!" But DOMA prevents that, stating that states are not required to recognize such laws from other states - a clear and blatant interference of the Federal government into States's ability to debate such issues/laws, violating the 10th Amendment while seemingly protecting States' rights. What if New Mexico wants to recognize a same-sex marriage from Idaho, whether or not New Mexico offers same-sex marriage?! DOMA just said it doesn't have to. Gee, thanks, DOMA - 10th Amendment already said that. If California gets ****ed off that Nevada doesn't protect the California golden quail, the California state bird, that's too bad - the Constitution does not force Nevada to enact laws in Nevada to protect California's officially-protected bird in Nevada. California will just have to nash its teeth.

But, trumping all that, if equal protection under the law is taken into consideration, all those states would have to honor under the 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments and, let's say, Massachusetts' laws on same-sex marriage (if it happens, and has been such ruled by its state Supreme Court), even if those states don't offer SSM. DOMA would be constitutionally dead and of right should be dead now. Passing a Federal constitutional amendment banning such marriages would be in direct conflict with all those amendments and articles already in place. Bet the religious freaks and Republicans forgot to mention all that, eh?

And, to top it off, "majority rules" is BS. The old guys in 1787 realized that a majority of ANYTHING could use its muscle to overpower and even persecute a minority of whatever (Episcopalians vs Quakers, Methodists vs Amish, etc.) And, just because a majority voted for something or believe in something doesn't make it fair or right. Look at the 2000 federal election. Gore had a 500k majority popular vote over Bush, but still lost the election. Why? The Electoral College, put into place so that smaller-popular states would not be rolled down by one or two more populated states in an election. One crowded state could overrule 5 sparsely-populated states.

A majority of voters in Colorado a few years back voted to deny the state legislature and voters to enact laws protecting the civil rights of gays and lesbians, called Amendment 2, which passed with an overwhelming majority. The US Supreme Court ruled that, uh, hello, when was it OK to specifically name any individual or class of individuals to be denied any protections or due process under the Constitution? Like, it's NOT. Law was struck down like a mouthy hooker. Majority may have ruled, but Majority was also WRONG. Ya gotta watch out for that worst kind of tyranny - the tyranny of the majority.

Aside from the stupid arguments equating SSM with bestiality, isn't anyone concerned about the denial of rights? When the attainment and expansion of rights, which is the main goal of the Constitution, is under attack, people are freaking APPLAUDING?! People applauded in the West Bank when they heard the World Trade Center was attacked. These subhumans on the planes sought to destroy what we value so dearly - liberty and freedom. Not everyone in this country enjoys them, do they? So, some could argue that those terrorists have won a small victory - our Constitution is being slowly chipped away, and those terrorists hug themselves with glee with every crack. Once one right is closed away, what's next, freedom to assemble peacefully in public, or private? The right to criticize a public official? The right to fly a flag in my own yard? The right to the same benefits as everyone else?

Good to go. Vote me in.

[usmc4669]

mrbsox:

"But.... then there are the catholic priests and their indescretions !! mrbsox: did you mean indiscretions? Any Catholic knows that Priests cannot get married?
Gay men can have sex only they cannot have babies. I I have nothing against gays living together, that's their choice, if ever time you seen two men or women living together would you call them gays? What if two brothers who lived together but wasn't married and plan not to get married shouldn't they be able to be married to reap the benifits of married couples?

[mrbsox]

USMC4669

YES, to needing a spellchecker.

NO to calling two people gay just because they live together
NO to 2 people getting married just to benefit from the system

[marinemom]

All interesting comments - and a lot of information on the Constitution as well.

However, if we do believe that all Americans are entitled to the same rights under the document, then we must be against any attempt to define "groups" who are only entitled to some of those rights.

There once was a government that legislated different rights for certain parts of the population, defined who was allowed to marry and be recognized as married, ordered marriages between those in the "right" group and those who were not dissolved and displayed complete disregard for homosexuals as human beings.

Germany got in the bedroom, folks.

Aside from separation of church and state - which is only mentioned in the entire Constituion as "Congress shall make no law abridging religion" - it is not the job of the Government to dictate a matter such as this. They may say it affects the moralsof the country - but hey, can Congress cast the first stone on morality?

[P. M. SHEEHAN]

I think the marriage aspect is ridiculous, but I do believe that gays should be entitled to civil rights. Let's say two men are living together for 25 years and one of them dies. I think that the survivor should be entitled to pension, medical and insurance rights from the late partner. Gays, in general, don't bother me. It's the "fags" and flambuoyant ones who do. In my own neighborhood, there is a lesbian who was married and had two daughters. When she felt it time to "come out of the closet" she dumped her husband and currently lives with three other lesbians in the house along with the youngest daughter. Fortunately, the oldest child is away at college. I think this is shameless because children are involved. Of course we have those who are hopelessly homophobic. I think many of these people have doubts about their own sexuality and are always on the defensive. They think that all gays spend time "cruising" in bars, and having sex with anyone they can. This isn't true. I've known two gay men for over 25 years who are wealthy executives, active in church and community and areCELIBANT. They are simply comfortable living with each other and doing things together. Bottom line: I am not in favor of a constitutional amendment.