Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MrFun
You seem to be an idiot.

The problem that we have, is not that we're denied getting married to someone of the opposite gender. Our problem is that we are not recognized when marrying someone of the same gender.

And I had especially treated the Question:
"Are Homosexuals discriminated?"

Which they aren´t if you take the traditional Standpoint of Christ fundamentalists that matrimony is something between a man and a woman (because matrimony is, from this standpoint, closely connected to the production of children).

So, gays aren´t prevented from getting married and therefore not discriminated for gender or sexual Orrientation.
They are just prevented from marry the person they love (whereby love, as I stated is no prerequisite for a marriage)

So, regardless of wether you call me an Idiot or not, there might be a lot of christian fundamentalists who might counter the arguments of Homosexual the same way I did.

(not myself, as I see no reason to prevent Homosexuals from marrying their and just tried to see thing with the eyes of an fundamentalist)

[Capt Dizle]

Isn't this just another gay pout? Did anyone bother to tell gay people that the world might have more important things to think about than them?

Isn't this just another fundamentalist pout? Did anyone bother to tell fundamentalists that the world might have more important things to think about than them?

If ever there was an issue that does not need to occupy the public energy this is it. If ever there was a time when the public will needed to be focused on substantive issues rather that social melodrama, now is that time.

On the other hand, if we can get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can get one to ban abortion. That is worth fighting for.

I would say just let the gay people do what they want if they would shut up. It's always whine, whine, whine. If they get this, they will just want something else later. Still, looking at it from the fundy POV, they are all going to hell when they die anyway, so why not let them have a little party now.

I do not understand why fundamentalist's can't let people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone. It's always preach, preach, preach. If they get this amendment, they will just want to deny someone something else later. Also, looking at it from their POV, the fundamentalist's are all going to heaven when they die anyway, so why not let them wait until then to start running things.

On the other hand, if they want to get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can trade to get one to ban guns.

[Solly]

"The problem that we have, is not that we're denied getting married to someone of the opposite gender. Our problem is that we are not recognized when marrying someone of the same gender."

There's still no discrimination. Straight people can't marry someone of their own gender either.

[Berzerker]

So much for any semblance of Bush believing in federalism and so-called states' rights.

Amending the Constitution, which does not require the President's approval, is not prohibited by federalism. And for a change, someone in the federal government wants to actually use the process written into the Constitution for changing it. Of course, he still supports all sorts of unconstitutional federal programs so his gesture is phony, not that his supporters care enough to stop supporting him.

I would disagree that the courts should decide, it ought to be up to the legislature. Let the people have a say on the issue.

Why is that such an offensive position?

Because Democrats like democracy only when they are in the majority.

banning gays from receiving the legal benefits of marriage is against the 14th amendment...

So 8-year olds should be allowed to marry? How about polygamists?

Is there a right to marry whomever you want just because you love them, che? Is it in the constitution, that the state cannot restrict marriage?

Does it matter? They are seeking an amendment so it doesn't matter if there is a right to marry. There is no power in the Constitution for the feds to be involved with deciding who can or cannot marry, but do the homosexuals care that polygamy was outlawed by Congress even though it is a religious practice for Mormons and therefore violates their religious freedom which is in the Constitution? Nah, in fact, as I've watched various "spokesmen" for homosexual marriage who've been asked if polygamists should be allowed to marry, NOT ONE has said yes. Nope, they just say that isn't the issue at hand... Well, tell that to polygamists who are in jail or had their marriages nullified or prevented. Be consistent... You can't argue discrimination if you are discriminating against others who want to marry...

[Berzerker]

Oops, I forgot the liberal response to libertarians:

If you don't like, LEAVE!

[Berzerker]

Amendments are unconstitutional

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, that was such a wonderful line from Giancarlo... much more worthy of sig, don't you think .

But it was still removed.

Actually, it is STILL the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment repealed it. So, no, technically it isn't "removed".

[SpencerH]

Again, I find myself in agreement with Berz, at least in principle (I must be a closet libertarian).

Take away the volatile gay issue and what do you have? A small minority of the countries population (SF municipal and 4 ( I think) Mass Judges) are railroading their beliefs over on the majority of the country since "full faith and credit" would require all other states to recognize those marriages as legal.

If the Utah government or a Utah court behaved the same way and began issuing marriage licenses to polygamists, would those against testing this question with a constitutional amendment have the same opinion? I doubt it.

This isnt a matter for the courts, its a matter for the people. If the amendment does not have overwhelming support from the people it will fail and gay marriage will become de facto legalized. On the other hand, if the amendment has enough support, then gays will unfortunately have to live with that fact.

[Berzerker]

much more worthy of sig, don't you think .

I tire quickly of sigs though as you can see.

Well Spence, I don't want government involved with marriage at all beyond custody and inheritance, i.e., the possible results of marriage. It just isn't my business who you marry (consensually of course ), therefore I can't ask a politician to make it his business. But my relevant objection to this issue is that homosexuals are pushing this to be in the position of suing people who don't give them the same benefits afforded other married people. It's about money in the long run...

[Imran Siddiqui]

This isnt a matter for the courts, its a matter for the people. If the amendment does not have overwhelming support from the people it will fail and gay marriage will become de facto legalized. On the other hand, if the amendment has enough support, then gays will unfortunately have to live with that fact.

But its an AMENDMENT! I mean do we really want another Prohibition debacle? I mean, that amendment had enough support. It is silly to include these type of issues in the Constitution itself!

[Thorn]

Does it matter? They are seeking an amendment so it doesn't matter if there is a right to marry. There is no power in the Constitution for the feds to be involved with deciding who can or cannot marry, but do the homosexuals care that polygamy was outlawed by Congress even though it is a religious practice for Mormons and therefore violates their religious freedom which is in the Constitution? Nah, in fact, as I've watched various "spokesmen" for homosexual marriage who've been asked if polygamists should be allowed to marry, NOT ONE has said yes. Nope, they just say that isn't the issue at hand... Well, tell that to polygamists who are in jail or had their marriages nullified or prevented. Be consistent... You can't argue discrimination if you are discriminating against others who want to marry...

Not true, the provision is Equality, Pologomy is not equal, there are subservient members of such a union directly implied. Which is descrimination itself.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Be consistent... You can't argue discrimination if you are discriminating against others who want to marry...

Yes you can. By your logic, if Ming banned you for being a libertarian (Or a public school did it if you're going to quibble over the fact this is a private site), you'd have to wholly accept it because you don't don't care if he discriminates against the most offensive idiots by banning them.

I know it's an "apples and oranges" comparison, but so is the comparion of homosexuality to polamory.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not true, the provision is Equality, Pologomy is not equal, there are subservient members of such a union directly implied. Which is descrimination itself.

Why can't Polygamy be equal? I mean you chastise people for stereotypical beliefs about homosexuality and then go off on stereotypical beliefs about polygamy! GAH!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn


Not true, the provision is Equality, Pologomy is not equal, there are subservient members of such a union directly implied. Which is descrimination itself.

no there aren't. and u have absolutely no business deciding what consenting adults wish to do or whom they wish to love.

head out ass.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But its an AMENDMENT! I mean do we really want another Prohibition debacle? I mean, that amendment had enough support. It is silly to include these type of issues in the Constitution itself!

I agree that trivial matters should not be dealt with by an amendment to the constitution. There are two questions though, is this a trivial matter, and do you want the courts to write the laws? I would argue that for the USA at this time that gay rights is not a trivial matter and it is not one that should be decided by the courts. The activism of the SF govt and Mass courts has brought the issue to a head. The only question is how we will deal with it. A national referendum requiring a large majority would work I suppose, but it seems to me that the way to decide this issue already lies in the framework to amend the constitution.