Marriage Amendment?
POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Thursday, August 12, 2004 20:33
VIEWED: 10254
PAGE 3 of 5
I may support the Marriage Amendment for several reasons.
First I believe the United States is a federal republic. We are a union of independent states united under a federal government. Each state has a right to its democratic process and traditions and a majority of states should not be forced to divest their culture because a minority of states (or a single state) wish to change certain bedrock ideals. I believe Massachusetts has a right to redefine marriage if a majority of its people feels that this is appropriate. That is the way a democracy works. But Massachusetts does not have the right to order Missouri to redefine marriage, especially since over 70% of the people in Missouri do not believe that marriage should be define the Massachusetts believes it should be defined. Both Massachusetts and Missouri have a right to their respective democratically legislative laws. That is the reason why this country was established as a federal republic. If the original thirteen colonies had wanted a single nation and a single set of laws they would have united under a single government, but they did not. They united under a series of governments each holding power over a certain jurisdiction.
Second, there has been an increasing number of Left-wing judges opting to legislative law from the bench. This is even more troubling then the above states rights issue, because this is anti-democratic. Judges creating instead of interpreting law is probably the most dangerous threat to our freedom that this country has ever seen. Already it is possible for a single judge to autocratically dictate law powerful enough to overturn law legislated in congress. This means that in our “free” nation we have appointed dictators who are able to overturn the will of elected representatives of the people on specific issues. For example, when congress passed a law making Partial Birth Abortions illegal as an elective procedure, they did so with a huge support. But this law was overturned immediately by a single judge.
It is important that we as a nation retain our federal system in order to preserve our widely varying freedoms and institutions and cultural diversity. It is even more important that we take measures to assure that autocratic judges cannot dictator the law. It is a frightening testament to how much we have lost that we must alter the Constitution to prevent judges from usurping the will of the people. How marriage is defined is less important then how its definition is being used to push certain agendas. An amendment to the Constitutions should seek, not to define marriage, but to assure that each elected state legislative body has the right and privilege to define marriage.
I have not read any proposed amendment for the Defense of Marriage Act, so I do not know what is currently in the works. After I have had an opportunity to read a proposition on the issue, I may decide whether I will continue to support this act. In general, I think it is a necessary amendment under the circumstances.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was preparing a big response, but I hit upon a point that made me reconsider my whole position.
The issue of family. A family member has certain legal and social priviliges over a non-family member, even a good friend (they are not necessarily great or far reaching and can vary quite a bit). My wife (if I had one) is family, my girlfriend (if I had one) is not.
It might actually be important to have a legal way of joining people into a family. As much as I don't like the idea of government being involved in (well, pretty much anything), I wouldn't go so far as to say that their can be a society without some arbitrating body.
While it might be nice to say that I should have the final say on who is and isn't my family; there needs to be a rule that society as a whole can use to arbitrate disputes. Not to mention you can't choose most of your family (heck at one time you couldn't even choose your spouse and in some places you still can't).
I am going to have to think about this element of marriage more to be really coherent. The best discussions are the ones that open up new thoughts.
Thanks
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For example, when congress passed a law making Partial Birth Abortions illegal as an elective procedure, they did so with a huge support. But this law was overturned immediately by a single judge.
Perhaps the judge saw past the inflamatory and inaccurate terminology and decided that the right to privacy outweighed the need for elected officials to kiss the asses of the far right types?
Loud support doesn't equal huge support.
The moral majority is neither. They're just the ones with the greatest desire to control others.
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allowing gay people to get married does not change how straight people are married. I am a student in New Paltz, NY, where some of the first (unofficial) gay marriages took place. We had protestors with signs about protecting traditional marriage.
Allowing gay people to get married in no way affects traditional marriage. If civil unions become legal, straight people will still be able to get married, so I don't understand why so many people are opposed to gay people being allowed to marry the person that they want to spend the rest of their lives with. To me marriage is the union of two PEOPLE who want to spend their lives together.
I also do not believe that a state vote for civil unions is a good idea. Why should a 70% of a state's population restrict the rights of 30% of the state?
Civil unions, gay marriages, etc. should be an option for all citizens. Whether or not one person agrees with it is irrelevant. If you don't like gay marriages, don't have one. But let gay people get married and be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It might actually be important to have a legal way of joining people into a family. As much as I don't like the idea of government being involved in (well, pretty much anything), I wouldn't go so far as to say that their can be a society without some arbitrating body.
Amen to that statement. I've read about and have known a few gay couples that suffered from the fact that they were gay couples. There was a couple that lived near my in-laws. They had been together for almost 20 years and would have been married if it had been legal. One of them got Pancreatic cancer. His family detested the fact that he was a homosexual and refused to allow his companion the right to see him on his death bed. Sadly, the man who became in my opinion a widower (when your with someone for 20 years as lovers.. you might as well have been married), without being able to say goodbye was wronged horrifically. Even more sadly, the cancer onset was so quick that they were unable to properly prepare for the eventuality that one or the other pass away (hindsight is 20/20). The family of the deceased kicked him out of his home (because his name wasn't on the deed) he had shared for almost 20 years. This is why I think Gay Unions should be allowed. They deserve the same protections under law that a straight couple has.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
For example, when congress passed a law making Partial Birth Abortions illegal as an elective procedure, they did so with a huge support. But this law was overturned immediately by a single judge
Hot-button issue for me. I'm taking a deep breath and really trying to be civil here. This is an issue that involves ONLY a woman. Not a bunch of old white men in suits. Thankfully, the court(s) recognized this fact.
And as Knibblet said, loud doesn't support huge.
****
Keep your laws off my body.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If the end result is that there are no laws, how can the supreme court rule them unconsitutional?
CONNORFLYNN wrote:
...a federal law versus leaving it to individual states to hash out and leave open th possibility for each state's law to be declared unconstitutional ina litigious situation.
Quote:Oh, I understand why it is a legal issue. I just don't think it should be.
CONNORFLYNN wrote:
Unfortunately, because currently Gay Unions are illegal.
Quote:That would be a valid comparison if federal law actually prohibited gay marriage. To my knowlege, at this point it doesn't. Why pass a constitutional ammendment when you can just change or strike the laws that are on the books?
CONNORFLYNN wrote:
states where medical marijuana has been legalized. . . the need for a Federal amendment IMHO
Quote:Considering that that is the situation right now, what purpose would the ammendment serve? I don't think more federal legislation is what we need to protect the power of the states.
FINN MAC CUMHAL wrote:
An amendment to the Constitutions should seek, not to define marriage, but to assure that each elected state legislative body has the right and privilege to define marriage.
Quote:
ARAWAEN wrote:
A family member has certain legal and social priviliges over a non-family member
The social issues are your problem. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I just mean it's up to you how to determine who is and isn't family - not the government. I certainly considered my "girlfriend" family for a while before we got married.
You're right that it would take some legal adjustment to deal with no marriage. A Will is a good idea even if you are married though, and it would tend to clear up any inheritance issues. I'm not sure what all else there is though...
Quote:How do you propose to change the laws then? Just ignore them? Ask the Queen for a ruling?
YENRIVER:
I also do not believe that a state vote for civil unions is a good idea. Why should a 70% of a state's population restrict the rights of 30% of the state?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's called fear. It's called hate. It's called irrationality. It doesn't have to make sense - it only has to appeal to those who write checks to politicians.
Quote:
Originally posted by YenRiver:
Allowing gay people to get married does not change how straight people are married. Allowing gay people to get married in no way affects traditional marriage. If civil unions become legal, straight people will still be able to get married...
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Allowing gay people to get married in no way affects traditional marriage. If civil unions become legal, straight people will still be able to get married, so I don't understand why so many people are opposed to gay people being allowed to marry the person that they want to spend the rest of their lives with. To me marriage is the union of two PEOPLE who want to spend their lives together.
The issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate is the desire to see government stamp its approval on the morality of the issue. [Something I don't believe the government has the power to do, not that this stops the government from trying on every issue going.] Most people believe that certain things are morally wrong (we just disagree quite abit about which specific things they are). Those who engage in those behaviors are damaging themselves and society. These might be drug use, hand guns, paying income tax, promiscuity, contraceptive use, pollution, violent videogames, reading Harry Potter, etc.(trying to cover the whole ideological spectrum here).
If you genuinely believe that something is damaging to individuals and more so if you think it is damaging to society, it is not unreasonable to think the government should do something to protect the community (from the individual) and the individual (from himself).
We all tend to scoff at the things we don't think are bad and try to stop those we do.
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
MiloraDell wrote: [re: partial birth abortions]
This is an issue that involves ONLY a woman.
Of course, that is the fundamental difference between those who oppose and those who support the right to abortion in general.
You say the issue involves only one woman.
Some folks think there's at least one other person affected.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME