Marriage Amendment?
POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Thursday, August 12, 2004 20:33
VIEWED: 10254
PAGE 1 of 5
In the proverbial words of Gilbert Gottfried (sp?) WHAT THE F**K?!?!
This is one thing that has me completely lost and searching for my old waterbong I used in College hehe..
I'm a Fiscal conservative and a Social Moderate (except when it comes to terrorists and their extremist ilk, then I'm a neocon). I'm personally against this amendment as it is suggested.
I think there should be an Amendment to the constitution granting full and equal rights under the law to gay couples. Specifying that the term marriage is a religious term rather then lawyer speak. Couples, gay or not should be required to purchase a "Civil Union" License, not a "Marriage" license. The "Civil Union" License would be presented to only human beings of course ;) (Sorry all you sheep lovers out there). By doing this we are not infringing on anyones rights or religious beliefs.
I have a number of gay friends and one gay brother. I feel they deserve the same protections under law granted to those who are by history (and currently by law) allowed to marry.
Gay couples have enduring relationships similar to straight couples. They know what love is. They also break up just as often. They have the same healthcare needs. They are required to pay taxes just like straight couples. They buy hiomes and community property together. They also have hopes of having children, whether through artificial means or through adoption. God knows there are 1000's of unwanted or mistreated children throughout the US and the rest of the world that would benefit greatly from such an adoption.
my 2 cents
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At the risk of blowing my hard-earned "Brainwashed Bushie" cred here, I agree 100%. Both the 'Marriage Amendment' and the earlier 'Defense of Marriage Act' (now PL 104-199, approved 09/21/96) are an embarrassment to a free country.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I kind of agree. Very unusual.
Here: Seems the conservative lawyer side of me says marriage is a specific legal act taken between a man and a woman. By definition it cannot apply to same sex couples.
But I am a lawyer so I see the underlying unfairness to gay couples and the unfairness it inflicts on a broader population who may seek a plutonic legal relationship that combines resources in an ever more difficult economy. For example, elderly friends who want to move in together for economic reasons and in no way want a physical or emotional attachment beyond that of simple friendship.
Seems to me the solution that traditional law most allows for is Contract. Persons can enter into contracts for any legal purpose. They should be allowed to combine their households in this way. Hence 'Civil Unions' should be an available alternative for same sex couples or people who merely seek to enter into economic unions. Marriage-like benifits but not marriage itself.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
I'm a Fiscal conservative and a Social Moderate (except when it comes to terrorists and their extremist ilk, then I'm a neocon). I'm personally against this amendment as it is suggested.
no true conservative would want to rewrite the constitution....
and putting homophobia into the constitution...
yes, that is a way to make future generations proud.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I keep thinking about this...
Why exactly is the federal government in the marriage business anyway? Haven't we come this far accepting that "marriage" is clearly a state issue, not a federal one? Why increase the federal gvt's powers?
Personally, I'd like to see marriage as a government act abolished altogether. Even as I went down to the courthouse a few years ago and signed my own license, I kept thinking "this is so dumb. What business is it of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who I choose to spend the rest of my life with?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If this amendment is passed, it will be the first time the US Constitution is amended to take away a citizen's rights. Wouldn't that be a crying shame.
State issue? Why is it a government issue at all? Wasn't it the church that started this whole thing of "joined by God, yadda yadda"? Why is it now something goverment puts their nose into?
Back when the world was flat and you'd burn in hell for munching on a steak on Friday, the church could push you around and tell you what to do. If you defied them, they'd but a zippo to your shorts and declare your ashes 'saved'. I refused them that right a long time ago.
I make my decisions and I don't base them on religion, taboo or superstition.
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.
I, personally, believe that the whole point of the protection of marriage crap is to get the 'fiery pit' crowd all worked up to vote for Dubya. It's also there to divert attention from the 1000 dead and 7000+ wounded American troops.
Rant complete.
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
You know, I keep thinking about this...
Why exactly is the federal government in the marriage business anyway? Haven't we come this far accepting that "marriage" is clearly a state issue, not a federal one? Why increase the federal gvt's powers?
Personally, I'd like to see marriage as a government act abolished altogether. Even as I went down to the courthouse a few years ago and signed my own license, I kept thinking "this is so dumb. What business is it of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who I choose to spend the rest of my life with?"
I agree with you, though probably for different reasons. I have always thought that the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage to me is a religious/spiritual union between two people and their god, something the government should have no say in.
That said there is an unfortunate financial complication involved in long-term partnerships and we cannot forget the other frequent complication, that of children. All people who are going to share assets should probably have a contract which details how they are going to divied up when that partnership ends.
My resolution is to have civil unions for all people administered by the government and then marriages for those that want them administered by churches in the manner prescribed by their own beliefs and codes of conduct.
I am sure that neither side (of the issue) will like my suggestion, as it lets no one tell others what to do nor does it pretend that the government can give moral sanction to a lifestyle [that is a government can declare something legal or illegal, they cannot make it moral or immoral.]
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The whole reason Marriage is a Government thing..is money, money and more money..taxes..etc..etc. If theres a way to make money from it, or tax it..the government will do it. Alil off the topic, I read somewhere about a proposed "Fat" tax LOL. (I'm still waiting for the sex/masturbation tax. It's bound to happen, I figure under a liberal (middle name "Tax") administration. hehehe.)
I agree whole heartedly, that it should be redetermined as a civil union, for governmental purposes.
The actual ceremony itself should not be controlled by the government.
Our laws are governed by our constitution, thus I agree there is a need for an amendment to prevent discrimination in this regard.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t see that our reasons differ here. I’d consider god optional in keeping with the beliefs of the persons involved – two people are perfectly capable of making a commitment to each other, deities notwithstanding – but I’m certainly not suggesting that priests, ministers, rabbis, high-priestesses, fellow practitioners, etc. shouldn’t be allowed to officiate weddings.
I agree with you, though probably for different reasons. I have always thought that the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage to me is a religious/spiritual union between two people and their god, something the government should have no say in.
Quote:Does anything prevent two private persons from signing a contract detailing a financial arrangement between them? Other than possible court proceedings should one violate the terms of the agreement, I don’t see why this should be a government issue.
That said there is an unfortunate financial complication involved in long-term partnerships
Quote:Parental responsibility should be determined by maternity, paternity and adoption. Not marriage.
and we cannot forget the other frequent complication, that of children.
Quote:My question is, why are the Civil Unions necessary? What purpose do they serve?
My resolution is to have civil unions for all people administered by the government and then marriages for those that want them administered by churches in the manner prescribed by their own beliefs and codes of conduct.
Quote:Hey, you can now count three sides that don’t like your suggestion. You should be proud
I am sure that neither side (of the issue) will like my suggestion, as it lets no one tell others what to do nor does it pretend that the government can give moral sanction to a lifestyle [that is a government can declare something legal or illegal, they cannot make it moral or immoral.]
Seriously, I’m not trying to play Bill O’Rielly/Micheal Moore here just smearing your points as though that strengthens my own. Is there a good reason for the government to issue Civil Unions?We’d have to change tax-filing statuses. I’ve never really understood what being married has to do with income tax anyway…
Insurance companies would have to find another way to determine who you could include on your policy.
Anything else?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that the only people who should have ANY say on whether or not consenting adults should be married are the ones who are getting married. Nobody should be able to tell them no. The government shouldn't be telling Americans that they can marry these people, but not these people. An amendment that defines marriage is the same as one that restricts it. What the government should do is ask the question: will this amendment make America safer, or provide citizens with more freedom? If the answer to that question is no, then what are we still talking about this for?
And I don't think that as a strait man, I should need the consent or approval of my government to marry who I want. I personally don't think the government needs to be that involved in anyone's life.
I have heard the argument that gays will ruin the 'Sanctity' of marriage, but I can't help wondering what the strait community has done for that 'Sanctity' lately.
"I read in a magazine, that you can talk to me about anything." - Prymatt Conehead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME