Protecting the institution

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redworm

Moderator
I feel I should bring this issue to light since it doesn't seem anyone else is going to touch it with a ten foot pole.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/05/same.sex.marriage/index.html

I'm sure everyone here knows what's going on. I'm also sure that at least a few have some very strong opinions on the issue and I figured it might be enlightening or at least entertaining to discuss it. :P

CNN said:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush offered a new pledge of support Monday for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, a measure expected to fail in the Senate and one critics blasted as an election-year diversion.

"This national question requires a national solution," Bush said in an event attended by supporters of the amendment. "And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts but from the people of the United States."

The Senate began debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment Monday afternoon. A vote on the amendment is expected on Wednesday.

Bush first endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in 2004, when he was a candidate for re-election. The proposed amendment failed in the Senate that year -- but similar amendments to state constitutions passed in 11 states, and observers credited those measures with bringing enough religious conservatives to the polls in key states like Ohio to give Bush the election.

Bush said the amendment is necessary because "activist judges" have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage that have passed by overwhelming margins.

"These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage," he said. "The people have spoken."

But opponents of the measure accused the president and his Republican allies in Congress of trying to divert public attention from concerns about issues like fuel prices and the war in Iraq.

"The president of the United States and the Republican leadership in the Senate have no answers to these questions," said Joe Solmonese, president of the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign. "They can't change the course of the country, so they're trying to change the subject."

The amendment drew 48 of the 67 votes needed to pass in 2004. Its principal sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, predicted it would get 52 votes this year.

"Now is the time to send to the states a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage and prevents judges from rewriting our traditional marriage laws," said Allard, R-Colorado.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush was repeating his endorsement "more in sorrow than anything else, that this may in fact require a constitutional amendment." He tried to play down the political impact of the proposed amendment, telling reporters: "I'm not sure this is a big driver, to tell you the truth, of voters."

But religious conservative leaders have said they are looking to the GOP to follow through on promises made in previous elections, and opponents of the proposal called it a cynical attempt to revive the party's sagging poll numbers.

"There isn't anyone here who is naive enough to believe that the introduction of this legislation now, in two consecutive election cycles, is anything but a politically motivated effort to win votes by demonizing a class of citizens," said the Rev. Robert Hardies, a Unitarian minister.

But activists say the vote is needed to help rally socially conservative voters who have become disillusioned by the current Republican leadership.

"We don't have an interest in re-electing a Republican Congress if they're not willing to fight for pro-family issues," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.
Click to expand...



If anyone hasn't guessed already, I'm strongly opposed to this issue. I don't believe it's anyone's business who I choose to marry. I also don't believe the government is right in legislating something based solely on the religious basis. Regardless of your opinion on homosexuality I find it hard to believe that anyone who claims to care about freedom would support an amendment that specifically denies an entire group of people a basic freedom (note I said freedom, not right...think about that before replying to that line ;)).

For those that support the ban, why? Why is one man allowed to marry and divorce a dozen women yet a different man cannot marry the one man he loves and wants to spend the rest of his life with?
 
I heard a different discussion about this on the radio today.

Both the for and against debaters mentioned the "normative" benefits of their position. Since when is it the government's place to establish or protect societal norms?


The answer to this question should be the abolition of the marriage license and any taxation or property benefits reserved solely for married people. Marriage is a social and religious institution, not a governmental derived mandate.

The "defining marriage" debate owes its roots totally to the existance of governmental interference into private life. Remove that intrusion and the issue evaporates.


I will be just as married when they burn the license and give me my $50 back. I will also be just as married no matter who else also calls themselves married.
 
I'm with Handy on this one. Marriage is between two people and their concept of the Deity. The problem is that there are legal rights that go with legal marriage: survivorship, communal property, certain assumptions in probate proceedings, etc.

And now we're definitely off topic for a gun board. Unless the spouse is going to get the deceased's guns.
 
I think the whole argument is a crock.
The government has no business dipping it's nose in matters of 'sanctity'. That's for the church to decide.
Our government should stick to regulating the contracts for civil unions (all marriages) and find more productive uses for their time.

I'm sure this thread is gonna get locked very soon.
 
I'm sure this thread is gonna get locked very soon.
Click to expand...

I don't see why it should. It falls within the scope of this forum:

Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.
Click to expand...
This is most certainly a general political issue. It involves an amendment to the Constitution. It's being used as a tool for politicians.

I don't see why this thread should be locked as long as things are kept civil. :confused: We had all those threads on immigration - a very important issue - and I don't see why this one doesn't deserve the same attention. It's about the very freedoms that the RKBA allows us to protect.
 
If there were nothing left to argue about, maybe I'd throw my hat in the ring. With all the real problems we have in this country, it doesn't even make my Billboard Top 100! For now, I DON'T CARE!
 
Yeah a person's sexual preference is their own business and nobody else's. Don't we have more important things to worry about?
 
The state-recognized part of a marriage should be called "civil union" or "civil cohabitation" or something similarly civil in nature. It should be a contract between several people (of whatever gender) and the state granting the individuals some standard set of financial/legal/medical rights to make decisions on each other's behalf. If someone wants a Heinlein-style line marriage to share responsibility of children and legal affairs, it's no business of mine to prohibit them.

The other part of a marriage should have no civil consequences. Religions or groups can call it marriage or whatever the frell they want, and they can set whatever marriage requirements they want as long as the marriage is strictly voluntary.

Religiocrats get the marriage they want, however they want it. They just don't get to cram it down everyone else's throat.
 
With all the problems we have today

Iraq, fuel prices, oil supply and national security, terrorism...yada..yada

we need a constitutional amendment to protect us from gay marriage.

this is a priority? what a crock of steaming horse poopie.

So what if two people of the same sex want to get married? Seems to me Christians want to have thier cake and eat it too. They want to enjoy the freedom of religion thing but at the same time shove thier principles onto other folks who want to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. What law abiding people do in the privacy of thier home is nobody's business. Sometimes the Christian side of the house gets a little too whiney for me. Chrisitans want to be exempt from Government pokings its nose into their places of worship but then want government to ram thier beliefs down other peoples throats by passing a constitutional amendment and using government to enforce it.
 
At the present time, marriage is two seperate things that we tend to mix up in our minds.
1.) Marriage is a religious ceremony. Thing is, not everybody believes in the same God.
2.) Marriage is a merger of two mini-corporations. This is the governmental aspect. Look at the mess of name change (usually woman) and all that. Look at the mess of divorce and the attendant listing of what assets each brought to the marriage and what each subsequently contributed.

In this, the Netherlands is right. Go shop for your own God/Church/etc. to perform any ceremony you want. The rest is just some forms.

I am also so sick of the arguement that this "defends" marriage. How do two people of whichever & whatever gender getting married threaten a heterosexual couple? More than the nearly 50% divorce rate does.
Notice that even with the trauma of a messy divorce that most remarry or get into a long term committed relationship.
 
There is no marriage cerimony in the Bible

According to my understanding of the Bible, when a male and a female join to gether in the sex act they become one and are married in GOD's opinion.

My problem with legally recognizing same sex marriage is where will we draw the line on who or what can marry who or what. It's just one more step toward allowing more than two people to marry, or people marrying their pets, people marrying inanimate objects etc. etc. etc.

Maybe this trend will lead to a real shotgun wedding.
 
I fully support the proposed amendment to the federal Constitution that would define marriage as the union of one man and one women.

I view the institution of marriage in three contexts, social, civil, and religious.

As we are free men and properly enjoy the liberty of conscience to worship God according to the dictates of our own will, it is not proper to deny to homosexuals the right to marry in the religious context although it is clear to me that the religion such people might be following is not Christianity.

As we have the freedom of association, it is not appropriate to deny to homosexuals the right to perform a ceremony of marriage where they can publicly proclaim their relationship before those family and friends they would care to invite.

The civil aspects of marriage, that is the contractual framework for marriage instantiated in our laws, is a far different matter and is properly the concern of any interested citizen. I personally find homosexuality to be revolting in the same manner that I find bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia or other sexualy deviant behaviors to be offensive and repugnant. As homosexuality does not directly harm none-participants, and as I am a tolerant man, I would not desire to have homosexuality criminalized, but neither would I have such behavior condoned or celebrated in our laws by providing to homosexuals civil recognition for their illicit relationships.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
Okiejack,
Yeah, so I've heard. Problem is people generally don't do things they don't want to do. Such as marrying animals, inanimate objects, etc.
Do you really envision people lining up around the block to get hitched to their hamsters? Doubt it. So this isn't really an outcome that we need to lose sleep over.

Richard,
I would not desire to have homosexuality criminalized, but neither would I have such behavior condoned or celebrated in our laws by providing to homosexuals civil recognition for their illicit relationships.
Click to expand...

So instead you seek to punish them through our laws for non-criminal behavior in direct contravention of the Constitution? Heh.
 
Marriage is between two people and their concept of the Deity.
Click to expand...

Why limit it to two people? Why not open it completely to any number of consenting individuals? The very concept of marriage being between two people is based on the same preconceived notions as the idea it's between a man and a woman. If you're going to dump one, might as well dump the whole thing.

Personally, I think you should be able to marry your car if you want to. But the gov't shouldn't have any role in it, and any religious organization should have the right to set its own standards for what marriage is.
 
Since when is it the government's place to establish or protect societal norms?
Click to expand...

Since the first gov't was established. Setting and protecting societal norms is one of the underlying principles behind organized societies and organized legal systems.
 
okiejack, civil unions could (and should) be defined as between humans. There's no reason to accept civil marriages to hamsters or rocks, since they don't have noteworthy legal status, and therefore there's no point to giving them power of attorney, joint access to financial accounts, joint legal residence at an address, etc. We can quibble over what "human" means, but the legal system has already dealt with that to most people's satisfaction.

Richard Hanson said:
I would not desire to have homosexuality criminalized, but neither would I have such behavior condoned or celebrated in our laws by providing to homosexuals civil recognition for their illicit relationships.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine if you were gay you'd feel differently.

Civil unions between any individuals does not celebrate homosexuality. It's merely an extension of the principles of privacy and personal business which you already seem to recognize. It's none of your business who people have relationships with, and similarly it's none of your business if they decide they want that relationship to last a lifetime.

Perhaps you ought to get riled up about the divorce rate instead of calling gays "revolting" and "deviant." It's not society's place to criminalize divorce, either, but I recognize that does more social harm than homosexual marriages/unions do.

I think society would be a lot better off if people didn't get formally married to start with. There must be a committment to raise any children, but a committment to stay with someone else for life, even if it's desirable in theory, has proven unworkable. It seems to me to be mostly a relic of religion.
 
The issue of who-can-marry-who notwithstanding, I absolutely oppose a constitutional amendment to settle it. I don't consider any politician alive today qualified to modify the US Constitution.

Tim
 
Buzz,

This country was established by Puritans, Quakers, Masons and a host of other people who were asked to leave Europe because they weren't being normative. I have no idea where you're coming from.


Richard,

While I appreciate your candor, you are presuming that this is purely a gay issue. Because all societies, ours included, have a great deal of gay people in them, they have a definite interest. But a civil union can be for any number of reasons:

Two nuns may want to adopt a daugter together - a civil union allows them to both have a say in the child's health care.

Two widowed brothers may want to co-mingle their property and estate to keep their children from selling off half their shared household. There are many uses for civil unions that have nothing to do with sex.


If you truly don't want to officially acknowledge homosexuals, I would suggest not making them the target of an amendment that names them as an acknowledged entity of significance.

Marriage is many things, but until it stops being a governmental institution, it needs to be equally available to all. That's the kind of country we choose to live in - rights are for everyone and the law offers equal protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top