Completely Off-topic! Same-sex marriage.

[Jim0322 Profile]

From http://www.cnn.com
Schwarzenegger, while saying he was "very much against" same-sex marriage, said he believes "very strongly in domestic partnership rights," which would confer the same benefits on same-sex couples that marriage confers on male-female marriage.

------------
I was divorced in 1998 and remarried last year. My views of marriage are not very idealistic or romantic. Marriage is essentially a legal arrangement that confers some “benefits” as mentioned above. It also has some liabilities, such as one spouse being responsible for another’s debts in certain cases and you can’t just get out of a marriage without completing certain legal procedures. For many people, marriage is not only a legal contract but is also a spiritual or religious institution. Many religions object to homosexuality. I believe that that is why there is so much opposition to same-sex marriage.

In our country, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Yet, on the issue above, religion is clearly guiding the law. I fully support the right of various religious groups to object to homosexuality and to not allow “same-sex” marriage in their churches or among their followers. However, marriage is just a legal arrangement. Our government should not be making it a moral one.

My 2c,
Jim

[Murgatroyd]

Separation of church and state (in America) is a farce. If you have any thoughts otherwise you are disillusioned. If you look at the constitution, it says something along the lines of:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

Nowhere in that clause does it say that religion cannot influence the government, or the laws made by the government, but rather that they cannot create or enforce any laws which are in regards to any specific religion.

So, separation of church and state as you intepret it does not exist as far as the constitution is concerned.

[Jim0322 Profile]

You have a good point Murgatroyd. It just seems very inconsistent that the law does provide the means for providing "domestic partner rights" conferring the same rights and responsibilites as marriage but does not call it marriage. I am no lawyer, but pretty much all of the legal rights and obligations of "marriage" can be arranged by an attorney.
Jim

[Murgatroyd]

Here's my beef. I don't like the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why?

One: Because I think that such decisions should be left to the states. I'm a big believer in devolution - that is a less powerful federal government and more powerful individual state governments. It fosters good trade between the states, increases interstate tourism, and makes for a more diverse country.

Two: The constitution of the United States should not be used as a tool to deny privilidges of it's citizens, as outlined in the 9th amendment - 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'. If they want to make a law regarding this, they should do so without amending the constitution.

To make any amendment to the constitution - the fabric on which this country is based - to somehow limit or deny certain liberties to any citizen of this country is anathema to the purposes for which this document was created in the first place.

[RCglider Profile]

Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
Here's my beef. I don't like the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why?

One: Because I think that such decisions should be left to the states. I'm a big believer in devolution - that is a less powerful federal government and more powerful individual state governments. It fosters good trade between the states, increases interstate tourism, and makes for a more diverse country.

Two: The constitution of the United States should not be used as a tool to deny privilidges of it's citizens, as outlined in the 9th amendment - 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'. If they want to make a law regarding this, they should do so without amending the constitution.

To make any amendment to the constitution - the fabric on which this country is based - to somehow limit or deny certain liberties to any citizen of this country is anathema to the purposes for which this document was created in the first place.

There already are laws. They are being ignored and judges are taking it upon themselves to create laws that don't exist or legislate from the bench. What needs to be done is prevent/remove activist judges in a rogue court that are attempting to undermine the foundations of our country.

This is not a matter of Rights. Prisoners lose Rights. Children don't have the same Rights as adults. You must be 18 to vote. There is discrimination in every sector of society, fully supported by Law. There are a few inalienable Rights, and they are endowed by their Creator. Gay marriage isn't one of them.

The foundation of our Constitution is based on morality and religious underpinnings. Some may not like it, but it's a fact, despite the fallacy of 'separation of church and state' indoctrination, which doesn't exist..

The reason this gay marriage subject, especially in Mass is important is because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The people have spoken on this, and if an Amendment is what it takes to secure the institution of marriage, so be it. If anything, it's the gay marriage (or call anything you want) proponents that should need to expend all the time, money and effort for an Amendment. The definition of marriage has already been long established.

[Major SONAR Profile]

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

I heard a good explaination of this about a month ago. If you break this down it is easier to understand.

"Congress shall make no law..." First of all this amendment is directed toward Congress. Let us continue...

Our country is made up of individual States joined together under the banner "USA". Each state is allowed to make laws and policies as they see fit. Back when this amendment was enacted many States were known by their religous affiliations. Some States were Catholic, some Methodist, some Lutheran, etc.

What this amendment means is that CONGRESS shall NOT mandate to the States which religion they must follow (or not follow) Each State has the right to determine for themselves which religion (if any) they should follow. Basically the Federal Government is not allowed to tell a State how it should be run.

A lot of our amendments are a direct result of things that were happening at that time. Back then in England the king was the head of the Anglican Church (The Church of England) (I could be wrong about this).. But the Church of England was the "offical/national" church for the whole country. Our forefathers didn't want to see this happen in our country so that were making sure that Congress didn't over step it's bounds and tell the States what to do.

I hope this makes sense. I'm not sure I have everything absolutly correct, but I think you guys get the general idea.

[Major SONAR Profile]

OH.. and there is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State"... That was pulled from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. No such thing in our Constitution.

Here is a good link.

http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html

[JimmyTango Profile]

I think it is sad, that in the year 2004, people are still ignorant enough to disallow simple rights.

Funny how the same side that does not at all want any form of legal coupling of the same sex is the same one that 100 years ago did not want women to have equal rights as men.

Just pathetic that in our advanced society, people are still so ignorant.

There are people that will 'allow' coupling, but not marriage. Stupid, just stupid.

Maybe African Americans can ride the bus, but only the rear quarter of the bus, huh? or how about they can now attend public schools, however, you sit with your own kind, drinks only out of your specifc water fountains and crap only in your specifc crapper.

Heck, screw it, fire up some burners and lets pick up where the final solution was stopped.

It is about love people, plain and simple.

[(SEETHER) Profile Website]

Don't know how you can be off the topic in this forum.

[Jeffro Profile YIM]

[smithpa68 Profile]

I don't really care about same sex marriages. My concern is that the next battle would be for adopting children. Kids have a tough enough time growing up these days without the additional complications, teasing, and abuse they would suffer at other children's hands.
Oversimplification... yes.. but I can only imagine how hard it would be on the kids.

[LeVar Burton Profile]

I'm all for the amendment. The way its proposed it wouldn't prevent states from making their own "civil unions." Like smithpa says, I think its a slippery slope. If you allow shit like this, alot of other shit happens which will lead to more and more shit.

[Bagginses]

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I'm all for the amendment. The way its proposed it wouldn't prevent states from making their own "civil unions." Like smithpa says, I think its a slippery slope. If you allow shit like this, alot of other shit happens which will lead to more and more shit.

But it's things like "new shit" that makes the human race develop. If "new shit" never happened we'd still be beating women unconscious with our clubs and dragging them back to our house by their hair.

-Bagginses

[LeVar Burton Profile]

But are you cool with things like bigamy and gay couples adopting children? Because if you start redefining institutions like marriage, you change alot of things that you aren't even thinking about right now. Most polls show about 2/3 of people against it right now. Do you want to let a minority of judges in two states decide for the entire country?

[Bagginses]

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
But are you cool with things like bigamy and gay couples adopting children? Because if you start redefining institutions like marriage, you change alot of things that you aren't even thinking about right now. Most polls show about 2/3 of people against it right now. Do you want to let a minority of judges in two states decide for the entire country?

Well, I agree, it is a slippery slope, and no I don't think a minority of judges should be determining the way things go, but, that doesn't mean that we can't start changing smaller things now to help the way things will progress in the future. I think it boils down to a very large societal and cultural issue more than it's a legal issue. Again, I agree that sudden change is bad (imagine if the drinking age was immediately dropped to 18). However, efforts should still be made in the way of change.

-Bagginses