Marriage Amendment?

POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Thursday, August 12, 2004 20:33
VIEWED: 10254
PAGE 5 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

ARAWAEN

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:19 PM

Quote:
Well, when that one other "person" can breathe for themselves, then they can have an opinion.

All those poor people are respirators.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

BEOWULF

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:
knibblet:
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.

It's not really private. Someone's got to perform the ceremony for you.

Why?

Quote:
Likewise, you gotta tell your family if you expect any gifts.

What do gifts have to do with marriage?

Quote:
The government has to say who can marry and who can't because they're the ones who give you the tax modifications.

They have to recognize the marriage if it's going to effect taxes... I don't really understand why it does anyway...

Quote:
A government-sanctioned marriage or civil union, affects child custody,

But should it?

Quote:
inheritance,

But should it? A formal last will & testiment would become even more important, but this doesn't have to be true.

Quote:
hospital visits,

This isn't as true in all cases as it once was. It seems like a lousy way to things anyway...

Quote:
The government is the thing keeping us from being able to marry a minor or a sibling or a sheep.

Children and Sheep can't enter into legal contracts. Having sex with either is generally illegal already. I don't see how government control of marriage really changes this. Is it illegal to have sex with an adult sibling? I honestly don't know, but I really don't see what difference it makes to the government whether they are married or not.

Quote:
On NPR they suggested the "civil unions for everyone" solution, but I remember there was a key flaw in that plan.

I'm kinda curious myself. Was it that neither side of the argument would be satisfied by that?

Quote:
The church has a say in weddings because they're the ones letting you use the church. And if you get married in a courthouse, they can excommunicate you and ban you from entering.

Are there still churches that do that? Most don't.

Quote:

Posted by Beowulf:
Quote:

More laws are rarely the best path to more freedom.

If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

I disagree with the first sentence. How else could we have banned slavery without an amendment banning it? Likewise, women couldn't vote without another law.

I did say rarely. In fact women's suffrage could have been accomplished by reforming state laws if not for the fourteenth ammendment. If I recall correctly Wyoming granted voting rights to women - I don't know if their laws were ever challened over possible conflict with the 14th ammendment, which doesn't forbid women from voting, but does specifically protect only the rights of men to vote. Slavery also could have been outlawed by the states after 1808. I'm not suggesting that I oppose the 19th or 13th amendments - or even that I don't think they were the right solution - just that they weren't necessarily the only way to go about it.

Quote:
And while state laws could be individually repealed, it'd take a heck of a long time. Missouri certainly won't legalize gay marriage anytime soon.

I'm not suggesting that sweeping, state-level reform would be quick or easy. Simply that it's an opportunity to question our reliance on government control.

Quote:
Quote:
Judges creating instead of interpreting law is probably the most dangerous threat to our freedom that this country has ever seen.

I dunno, the Nazis and Commies were pretty dangerous. I really don't see the threat of judges making their rulings. It's not like we couldn't make a law or constituional amendment to smite anything they've ever said. So why did the judge overturn the partial birth abortion plan? I don't remember, and I'd like to know.

Roe v. Wade established precident that women do have the constitutional right to abort. The judge found that a law against this particular procedure violates that right.

Quote:
Anyways, my take on all this is that no one's forcing anyone to tolerate gays

But that's actually the crux of Funn M

RADHIL

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It is not, however, the job of judges to overturn a law based on that judges ideology.

When someone eliminates the need for interpretation from law, then you can make a case for eliminating ideology.

Quote:
True. It is the fact that they autocratically impose their ideology on the people, by overturning laws based, not on legal merit, but on their ideological views, that makes them dictators.

Congress and the President have no restrictions separating their ideologies from their work. In fact, it's the primary method of their appointment. So I fail to see why the judiciary suddenly needs this restriction.

And as I can see it coming... before you set up the arguement that federal judges aren't elected, I'll remind you that they're selected by Congress and the President, who are. So that complaint doesn't wash either.

Your arguement loses a lot of weight when you keep throwing around the anonymous "they"s. There are select judges who have taken action in this. The legality of their actions is debatable - particularly the Massachusetts judge, who I think overstepped his bounds in ordering the legislature to pass a law, rather than simply ordering that the marriage could take place - but ordering a call for the heads of all judges makes this kinda laughable. You don't gut or limit the power of the Presidency simply because you don't like what the guy in office is doing at the moment - as I hear some members of Congress are now trying to do to the judges who would overturn any marriage law, by forcing them to legally not be able to hear the cases. Why you would do so to the judges based on political loudness is beyond me.

It's kinda ridiculous - there are overrides and balances written into the entire federal system, all three branches, from appeals to amendments to vetos to overrides, and we have a bunch of kooks trying to get around them. Simply because they can't get enough support to do it the "right" way, and they can't tolerate any other arguements other than their own. Is it really any wonder this country is FUBAR?

EDIT - And to actually be on topic -

Quote:
Originally posted by SgtGump:
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.

Truer words never spoken, and pretty much sums up my entire thoughts.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

ARAWAEN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:15 PM

Whether or not marriage is a private act or a communal one is a fundamental question to consider.

A person is joining their spouse's family and vice-versa. This extends past the two individuals unless they were both disowned.

Not all, but (seems to me) most people feel the need to declare to the community at large, "this is my spouse". That is why we have engagment and marriage notices, engagement and wedding rings, receptions, 'just married' on the back of the vehicle, etc.

I am pretty sure you have to have a witness as well as someone to perform the ceremony. Legal and traditional reasons aside, it is an oath, being given not only to your spouse but also to the community. And yes like most traditional things it means different things to different people. [Is my sister's husband my brother-in-law or just my sister's husband?]

Marriage has to be more than 'going steady' or 'exclusive boy/girl-friend' or it wouldn't really be necessary.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

ARAWAEN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:33 PM

Quote:
My one parting point - nobody's "pro-abortion." Nobody's saying person X should have an abortion, has to have an abortion, etc. What's being said is - person X should be able to make that CHOICE for herself.

Person X is making a choice about herself and another person, the choice to kill that other person.

I am not anti-choice, I believe that a woman's body is her own to control, but the choice to kill another human being, though sometimes necessary, should strike everyone as a bad thing (IMO). No matter the age of a person, when it becomes necessary to kill him/her, a lot has gone wrong, a lot of bad decisions have been made (not necessarily by the person forced to make the decision) and nobody should be content to sweep the problem away when the inconvenience/hazard is gone.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5