NationStates Jolt Archive

Because I don't know how to talk about much other than politics....

The Federal Marriage Amendment is being debated in the US Senate this week, with a vote scheduled for later in the week (last I heard, anyway).

Now since this is a Constitutional Amendment, there's virtually no chance it will pass. It would take 67 yea votes in the Senate and 290 in the House, and there's no way that's happening.

Now I'm not so much looking for a debate on the merits of the Amendment (though I'm sure that will happen anyway) as I am wondering how you think the vote will wind up and why. Take the poll and give your opinions.

I voted for the third option.

However, I believe that there won't be an up-or-down vote on the amendment - there will be a cloture vote tomorrow that will fail, and the amendment itself won't be considered.

I knew I was forgetting an option. I agree with you on that--there are enough Senators from both parties who don't want to go on record (it only takes 40 after all) that will keep the vote from ever coming up. There will be some pressure to have it come to the floor--Bush needs to have this election turn on cultural issues instead of substantive ones if he wants a shot at winning--but I get the feeling that the Republican Senators who are up for reelection this year are starting to think that Bush's strategy might be a loser, and that Bush might not have any coattails.

I agree with Goober...tomorrow they're supposed to vote on cloture for the FMA...at least that's what the millions of e-mails I've been getting are telling me..I don't really know how cloture works, and why the fans of the FMA are pushing for it... but I'm confident it will not pass- probably too confident
It would be interesting, though, to see what would happen if the amendment did pass...(as much as I hate the idea- I'd love to know how everyone would react)...hmmm....

I really don't think it will go anywhere.

It takes a bunch of work to open the Constitution(for a good reason).

This is most likely a ploy by the Repugs to "incite" the Religious base.....

Jay Bookman: The love that dares not neigh its name

July 13, 2004
ATLANTA -- "What's next?" Braves pitcher John Smoltz said, when asked his opinion about gay marriage. "Marrying an animal?"

It's fascinating how often that happens. Time and time again, when opponents of gay marriage and gay unions are asked to explain their position, their real underlying concern turns out to be a rather odd fear of bestiality.

That same obsession seems to have afflicted Timothy Dailey, a stern opponent of gay marriage and a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a national conservative group. In an FRC brochure titled "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage," Dailey brings up an obscure case that came to light five years ago about a deluded soul in Missouri named Mark. It seems that Mark fell in love with his pony, named Pixel, and in 1993 actually "married" her in a private ceremony.

"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving," Mark was quoted as saying in unbridled affection. "I'm very proud of her ... . Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."

For Dailey, this was a call to arms. Like Smoltz, he worries that if gay marriage or gay unions are allowed, there would also be nothing in the law to stop couples such as Mark and Pixel from also getting hitched.

"Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman," Dailey warned, "it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex -- even nonhuman 'partners.' "

Imagine, if you will, the possible implications of such a thing. For example, it could mean that animals who enter this country illegally might be able to marry U.S. citizens and then demand the right to vote, for goodness' sake.

To avert such calamities, Dailey and others are pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus removing any possibility that individual states could decide for themselves to sanction bestiality or gay unions. The proposed amendment is scheduled to be debated and voted on this week in the U.S. Senate, and it's expected to be a bitter and divisive fight.

So I have a proposal: If the real, underlying issue in this debate is the fear that human beings will someday be allowed to marry animals -- if Smoltz, Dailey and others are honestly and truly worried by that prospect -- then let's address that issue head on. Let's pass a Federal Animals, Relationships and Marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws all interspecies marriages, period.

The FARM act would have two other important advantages over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. First, this is a deeply divided nation, and the last thing we need is something to get us even angrier at one another.

What we need instead is something that will unite us, a cause that all of us can rally behind. And surely all Americans -- with the notable exception of one very lonely guy out in Missouri -- can get behind the FARM act and thus protect human-to-human marriage from this dire threat.

By championing the FARM act, President Bush could finally make good on his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. And John Kerry could use the amendment to demonstrate yet again that there are some issues too important to compromise on. As far as I know, he is now and has always been opposed to human-animal sex, even during the '60s.

Second, and more important, my proposal would address a glaring loophole that Dailey, Smoltz and other courageous crusaders against bestiality have apparently overlooked.

Pixel, you see, is a female pony, which means that technically speaking, she and Mark in Missouri have actually enjoyed a stable, heterosexual relationship.

A ban on same-sex marriage would do nothing to prevent them joining in holy matrimony. Only the FARM act can save the republic from that travesty.

Funny thing about the Smoltz comment is that while he was saying that, a recent survey of MLB players found that 3 in 4 wouldn't be bothered by having a gay teammate. Robin Ventura of the Dodgers, when asked, shrigged and said he figured he'd probably already had one. So attitudes are changing, and for the better in my opinion.

I think that people may also not really want to be abstaining. While it wont offend the moderates it will offend the religous right.

Tomarrow a great thing may happen.
A bipartisan.
...
...
...
...
fillibuster.

I agree with Goober...tomorrow they're supposed to vote on cloture for the FMA...at least that's what the millions of e-mails I've been getting are telling me..I don't really know how cloture works, and why the fans of the FMA are pushing for it... but I'm confident it will not pass- probably too confident
It would be interesting, though, to see what would happen if the amendment did pass...(as much as I hate the idea- I'd love to know how everyone would react)...hmmm....

Cloture is when someone moves on the floor to end debate and start voting on the amendment. It’s what you need to move past a filibuster (2/3rds I think).

They've scheduled the vote on cloture for noon EST. You can see it on C-SPAN2, if they haven't changed the schedule (the person holding the floor last gets to make the schedule for the next day, especially when they adjourn at 10:09 or something silly)

I think there was one option missed in the poll. Dead even. I think it will probably get 50 votes, or rather in that area. I think a few of the more liberal republicans with vote against, and a few of the more conservative democrats will vote for it.
I don't think that the vote is entirely political, not that I would really care if it was because I would support the amendment anyway. I think that it is there to force a vote to get people clearly on the record. Sen. Edwards and Kerry are expected to vote on the amendment, thusly they will not be able to refute the stances they take when they vote. They will not be able to say that they are against gay marrige with any degree of credibility. Sure they say that they are against gay marrige but for civil unions, but there is nothing in the amendment that bans civil unions. It is a simple statement protecting the tradition of marrige. I think it is genious personally. The republicans have been debating the amendment on and off for a while now. This time they get to kill two birds with one stone. They get to give their efforts to defend marrige national recognition so they can get more momentum behind it, and they get to hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the eyes of voters with traditional family values. It doesn't matter whether the vote fails or not, it only matters that they get the dems on the record as far as their positions go.

The whole FMA debate is really about making the Defense of Marriage Act a part of the Constitution. As a conservative I would rather not have to go to the constitution to resolve this debate, I would rather have each state decide. The only problem with that is that we have a Supreme Court that thinks its a legislature that can write law. So as a Christian I would like to see this Amendment pass. Don't get me wrong, I have homosexual friends, while I may detest their lifestyle, I accept the person as they are. On the other hand we have extreme homosexual activists that not only want us to accept them as the people they are but they want us to accept their lifestyle as well.
If the Supreme Court decides to make homosexual marriage the law of the land by overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (highly likely as the law is being challenged in the lower courts right now) then homosexuals can claim discrimination from every Christian who decides to stand on their moral beliefs and get away with it. Church tax-exempt status could be revoked because ministers and priests preach "hate" for the homosexual lifestyle. Churches could be forced into holding homosexual marriage ceremonies.
Again I would rather have each state decide this issue for themselves and let Federalism work as the founders intended but that option is beyond us because we have such an activist Supreme Court that would overturn any decision by the majority acting through its elected officials in Congress. By the way, 60% of people in the US oppose homosexual marriage.

I think there was one option missed in the poll. Dead even. I think it will probably get 50 votes, or rather in that area. I think a few of the more liberal republicans with vote against, and a few of the more conservative democrats will vote for it.
I don't think that the vote is entirely political, not that I would really care if it was because I would support the amendment anyway. I think that it is there to force a vote to get people clearly on the record. Sen. Edwards and Kerry are expected to vote on the amendment, thusly they will not be able to refute the stances they take when they vote. They will not be able to say that they are against gay marrige with any degree of credibility. Sure they say that they are against gay marrige but for civil unions, but there is nothing in the amendment that bans civil unions. It is a simple statement protecting the tradition of marrige. I think it is genious personally. The republicans have been debating the amendment on and off for a while now. This time they get to kill two birds with one stone. They get to give their efforts to defend marrige national recognition so they can get more momentum behind it, and they get to hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the eyes of voters with traditional family values. It doesn't matter whether the vote fails or not, it only matters that they get the dems on the record as far as their positions go.You may wind up being right on the final vote tally, but only if it gets to that point. The Republicans have to get to 60 votes in the cloture vote for it to even get to the floor of the Senate, and that's looking less and less likely, mainly because there are enough conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans who don't see this issue as being helpful in their reelection bids.

But you're mistaken when you say that the amendment wouldn't allow for civil unions. That's one of the reasons it's been so adamantly opposed by many in the Senate--it defines marriage as between a man and a woman and makes illegal all state legislation that provides for same-sex marriage or any of the legal incidences of marriage to same sex couples.

As far as hurting Kerry and Edwards, I don't see a no vote being a problem--their stand is that while they may not personally support same-sex marriage, to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution is wrong, and the majority of people in recent polls agree with them.

Already at least 60% of america is against gay marriage... with the right campaigning, it could happen. The reason why we need an AMMENDMENT is because this is not a state matter... if you make it a state matter, then even if you manage to ban gay marriage in your state, and manage to not have any wacko activist judges, your people can still go to the next-door state and get married and then come back and your state has to recognize it. Basically, the laws on the state level are useless, and easily overruled... a consitutional ammedment, although it sounds extreme, is the only solution.

I'm against civil unions and for gay marrige :p.

Here's an idea: politics gets it's head out of marrige's ass and leaves it alone? That way, if a church says "I will allow gay people to be married," nobody will CARE.

My idea: Erase the term "marriage" from every legal document. Replace it with civil union. It's the word "marriage" that people are concerned about. The government should butt out about the definition of the word, and leave it up to society.

Exactly.

That way, nobody can complain. Well, ok, people will OBVIOUSLY still complain. But hey, that's always gonna happen. They'll complain less

i agree with capsule just compleatly get rid of the word, also im from mass and when i leave the state i get odd looks from people when i park any where after they look at my license plate...never happened before the gay marrige passing, its like they afraid that all people from mass are gay and gunna spred it...hell i aint the plauge!

Exactly.

That way, nobody can complain. Well, ok, people will OBVIOUSLY still complain. But hey, that's always gonna happen. They'll complain less
it's the old "fine, NONE of you will get what you want" situation :P

or wait... if they are really out to destroy marriage as many claim, would that simply meet their goal? lol

i agree with capsule just compleatly get rid of the word, also im from mass and when i leave the state i get odd looks from people when i park any where after they look at my license plate...never happened before the gay marrige passing, its like they afraid that all people from mass are gay and gunna spred it...hell i aint the plauge!2 questions, 1: what is your plate? and 2: How the heck did you guys manage to elect a mormon republican as governor of liberal MA?? :P

theres a big Massachusettes on it and im going with we where drunk! but i didnt votes so its not my fault!

There is also a way to amend the Constitution with 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying the amendment. Prohibition ended this way. A "definition of marriage" amendment will not pass through Congress, but there is a good chance enough state legislatures would approve it. The "liberal" states wouldn't, of course, but while New York, California, etc, have big sway in Congress, they're totally cancelled out by Wyoming and Montana when it comes to state legislature approval.

I'm very, very conservative, but at the same time I don't like the idea of the Government stepping in. The solution to 99% of social issues, I believe, is not more legislation. Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem, in the words of our late beloved Mr. Reagan.

Kw.II

There is also a way to amend the Constitution with 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying the amendment. Prohibition ended this way. A "definition of marriage" amendment will not pass through Congress, but there is a good chance enough state legislatures would approve it. The "liberal" states wouldn't, of course, but while New York, California, etc, have big sway in Congress, they're totally cancelled out by Wyoming and Montana when it comes to state legislature approval.

I'm very, very conservative, but at the same time I don't like the idea of the Government stepping in. The solution to 99% of social issues, I believe, is not more legislation. Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem, in the words of our late beloved Mr. Reagan.

Kw.II
and like I said, state laws are irrelevant in this matter.

California had a law banning gay marriage, voted in by majority... and their liberal supreme court overturned it. Lot of good state legislature did there.

And those states who actually enforce their laws? Well the gays there just have to go to san fransisco or portland, get married, and then come back, and their state has to recognize it.

State laws ammount to jack squat on this issue... that is why it MUST be a federal issue.

and like I said, state laws are irrelevant in this matter.

California had a law banning gay marriage, voted in by majority... and their liberal supreme court overturned it. Lot of good state legislature did there.

And those states who actually enforce their laws? Well the gays there just have to go to san fransisco or portland, get married, and then come back, and their state has to recognize it.

State laws ammount to jack squat on this issue... that is why it MUST be a federal issue.
Actually, California's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter of same-sex marriage, and the point being argued before them is actually dealing with whether the Mayor of San Francisco had the power to unilaterally change state documents. He's likely to lose on that point, to be quite honest, although I think the matter of same-sex marriage will come before the state Supreme Court again and it will win.

The last story I read about a week ago in Multnomah county Oregon said that a judge had required the county to register the same-sex marriages performed there, but that the final decision as to their legality would be decided by the state Supreme Court.

I do agree with your earlier suggestion that we do away with the government's use of the word marriage entirely--go to civil unions as a state matter and let churches use the word marriage. That sort of compromise won't satisfy the cultural conservatives in Congress though. Rick Santorum won't be happy until we go back to the days of stoning homosexuals in the town square.

I'm curious as to where you get the statement that 60% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Are you combining the numbers of those who are opposed to all recognition with those who support civil unions but not marriage?

To make it short: The US have serious problems realizing that we live in 2004 and not 1700 or something. Giving gays the right to marry does not take away from anyone. Extending protection of relationships betwen 2 consenting adults is the future. That the US are falling back into medieval times is sad and frightening. The nation used to be progressive when it came to civil freedoms. Seems that time is over since the republicans took over the reign :(

Homosexuality is unnatural. It can´t be recognized and be put on the same level than mariage. Mariage is one man, one woman. You don´t need a law. That is a fact in every western country of the world. And as far as I know the United States of America considers itself a western country. So, don´t be foolish.
As far as I know it was a fact that in some US states homosexuality was banned (or still is banned???) since a few years ago. You seem to go from one extreme to another. What consenting adults are doing in private I don´t care about, but such things shouldn´t be recognized by the state. That is not mariage.
Mariage is an improtant instituition. It is the key cell of society. One man and one woman forming this alliance to be bound to each other, to have children and therefore garantee the future and well-being of society. Mariage and family are of the utmost importance. We need to care about this institutions, especially in western societies with declining birth rates. Therefore this mariage and families needs special protection and support by the state.

snip

I'm curious as to where you get the statement that 60% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Are you combining the numbers of those who are opposed to all recognition with those who support civil unions but not marriage?

Beat me to it Incertonia! ;)

I would add that there are many Religious types that don't belive in civil unions of gays either so the word change argument would not work.

LOL every western world? Remember Canada?

Homosexuality is unnatural...how? Many animals practice it. it's found all over the damn place in nature. Therefore, it's not "un-natural" :p

And if it's the key stone to society, what does that say about people who are single and don't want a life partner? Or people who are single and can't find one?

And what does that also say about prostitution? I suppose that's also unnatural :p

Homosexuality is unnatural.


How so? It occurs in the wild....


It can´t be recognized

I am hoping you are refering to marriage. If not.....what's your views on blacks?


and be put on the same level than mariage. Mariage is one man, one woman. You don´t need a law. That is a fact in every western country of the world. And as far as I know the United States of America considers itself a western country. So, don´t be foolish.

Well other countries allow for multiple wives and some allow for multiple husbands(Nepal).

As far as I know it was a fact that in some US states homosexuality was banned (or still is banned???) since a few years ago. You seem to go from one extreme to another. What consenting adults are doing in private I don´t care about, but such things shouldn´t be recognized by the state. That is not mariage.
Mariage is an improtant instituition. It is the key cell of society. One man and one woman forming this alliance to be bound to each other, to have children and therefore garantee the future and well-being of society. Mariage and family are of the utmost importance. We need to care about this institutions, especially in western societies with declining birth rates. Therefore this mariage and families needs special protection and support by the state.

Your views of the concept of marriage seem to be more fantasy based then reality. I just read there is a 60% divorse rate these days? Gays getting married or wanting to be married hardly caused to this.

I have no problems with them getting married myself.

Considering the population of gays vs straights, if marriage is going to collapse because we allow for a few gays to get married then the whole foundation of marriage is about to die anyway.

It will hardly be affected by this.

People will still marry as they always have.

And let's not forget the Netherlands and Germany as well--both countries recognize same-sex unions. Also, if the purpose of marriage is to form a unit and procreate, then does that mean that sterile people or those too old to procreate should be refused the rights associated with marriage? Should we start forcing couples where the wife has reached menopause to get divorced because she can never get pregnant again? Do we want to start requiring sperm count tests in order to get a marriage license, along with affadavits stating that the couple will agree to be fruitful and become many and fill the earth with their progeny?

"Germany recognizes same-sex unions."
But not the right of adoption and other rights which are reserved for mariage. That would be unconstitutional according to Article 6 of the german constituition which requires special protection for mariage and families.

Homos can`t form families. You have to treat different things differently. And therefore mariage is only possible for one man and one woman.

My biggest question in this whole issue is... why do any of you /care/? (I'm talking to those who want to ban it here). If Homosexuals get married, how the hell does that effect /you/? Quick simple answer. It don't.

Now I know what some people are going to say, "We live in a Democracy, and the majority gets its way." Answer this is we live in a Democratic Republic. One of the things the United States prides itself on is protection of the minority from oppression of the majority. Because don't get it any other way. Your controlling someone's basic rights. Thats oppression my friends.

Moving along. My main point is, simply because something is a majority opionion does not mean that it should be that way. Say the majority of the country considers a book 'against basic christian tenements'. This does /not/ give them the right to ban said book or keep me from reading it. This correlates. Simply because the majority of the country might disagree with homosexual marraige does not mean that we can tell people, "No. Bad. Your acting immoral. And I know that. Because I'm a (Insert Religous Affiliation Here)." None of us have the qaulifications nor the right to define morality for someone else.

And for all of you denouncing those 'wacko evil activist judges' heres some food for thought. Thats there damn /job/. To make sure that the legislature doesn't do naughty things against the states constitution. Because, in my opionion, the constitution must defend our basic freedoms and rights. It should /not/ restrict freedom's and rights. The last time they tried that was prohibition. Yet another group of religous people defining morality for the rest of America.

Gay Marraige is only the issue of the two who are choosing to get married. Not the State. Not the Government. Not the Catholic Church. Not the CEO of Nike. I think we should get rid of marraige in a legal context anyway. Replace it with a civil union. Let the churchs give marriages.

And thats my two cents. Thanks for readin'.

The Black Forrest,

it is a reality that 2/3 of Americans are against gay marriage. You are democracy, aren´t you?? So, listen to the people

"Germany recognizes same-sex unions."
But not the right of adoption and other rights which are reserved for mariage. That would be unconstitutional according to Article 6 of the german constituition which requires special protection for mariage and families.

Homos can`t form families. You have to treat different things differently. And therefore mariage is only possible for one man and one woman.
Homosexual couples can most certainly form families and raise children. My ex-wife and her partner are doing a damn fine job raising our daughter--14 and an honor student. And you still haven't answered the arguments I posted above about sterile heterosexual couples--should they be denied the right to marry because they can't procreate? I had a vasectomy 12 years ago--should I be denied the right to marry because in order to have more children, I'll have to have surgery that may not work?

The Black Forrest,

it is a reality that 2/3 of Americans are against gay marriage. You are democracy, aren´t you?? So, listen to the people
As to this point, the US actually isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic, which means that minority rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Had we relied on referendums and the will of the majority, African-Americans would still be denied the right to vote, as would women, and slavery might still be in existence. Take a basic poli-sci or government course and educate yourself.

Exactly. Just because the majority of citizens want something doesn't mean they can violate someone's rights and do it. If 2/3rds of the country wants me lynched, I'm still entilted to my right to trial by jury.

Your arguing with Kybernetia is useless. He/she/it was a strong defender of the death penalty when I tried getting my resolution against it through the UN here and he is against homosexuals. See him for what he is. A Neo-conservative. Arguing with this kind is useless, his beliefs have been hammered into his head to the degree that he'll try to convince you that he's right while spouting his aggressive nonsense.

The Black Forrest,

it is a reality that 2/3 of Americans are against gay marriage. You are democracy, aren´t you?? So, listen to the people

The other responses covered this just fine. I am just replying to show I read it.

But I weigh in on the "We are not a true democracy" argument. As it was said we are a democracy and a republic. As such the majority does not automatically win.

Look at the last election! ;)

The other responses covered this just fine. I am just replying to show I read it.

But I weigh in on the "We are not a true democracy" argument. As it was said we are a democracy and a republic. As such the majority does not automatically win.

Look at the last election! ;)

I love how you just slid that in there. :)

Your right. I'm fairly sure that's because the founding father's worried about mob rule when forming there country. Thats the reason we have the Electoral College.

I don't agree with the Electoral College. I think its outdated. However, I do agree that we need muchos checks and balances... because people are realllly... realllly... stupid. No... Not you people... those, um... Other people... Yeah...

In English, the constitution is there to keep bad people from seizing power. Amending it to take away rights... not good.

@Incertonia

"And you still haven't answered the arguments I posted above about sterile heterosexual couples--should they be denied the right to marry because they can't procreate?"
Hey, calm down. I´m not an answering maschine. You have to leave the decision to what comments I answer and how I answer to me.
Regarding to your point: exceptions don´t questions the rule. More than 80% of maried couples are having children. That a minority don´t have children for whatever reasons doesn´t change the meaning and importance of mariage. Exceptions don´t break the rule or in other words exceptions are proving the rule. You are always going to find exceptions in everything. But as long as they are just exceptions they are irrelevant and can´t be used as an argument against the rule. So: don´t worry: I neither want to make parenthood compulsory or reject people the right to have a Joseph marriage (a mariage without sex), or other unusual things.

"As to this point, the US actually isn't a democracy"
Isn´t it? Well, it depends on the definitions you use.
According to Platon there are three main forms of government: democracy (rule of all), aristocracy (rule of a few) and monarchy(rule of one). That are the basics according to him.
Every form has its negative extremes. Democracy - Anarchy, Aristocracy - Oligarchy, Monarchy - Tyranny/dicatatorship.

There are of course many ways to mix those forms of government. In the western world the main form of government is a representative democracy or a parlamentarian democracy and not a direct-democracy.
Republic comes from res publica and just means public affair. A principal which the romans established during the period of their representative democracy.
This statement underlines the importance that state decisions must be made in a transperent way
Another principal of the romans was the legality principal. Nulle sine poena lege - No punishment without law. Another one was the principal of written laws. A principal which isn´t used in the common law system in the anglo-saxon world but in the Roman law system in continental Europe.
But what you want to refer to is the so called natural law, which was a concept of the enlightenment. It claims basic human rights as unalionable rights.
However: this natural law is not that natural. We don´t know how often they were violate and are violated and are going to be violated.
None the less they exist and ought to exist. But the question is: what conclusions do you drew from that???

The basic freedoms in the constituition of the US or in other constituitions in the western world are freedoms of ..., meaning freedom from state interference. They are not demands for something, e.g. like social security or tax benefits for gays or something. You can´t come from those things to gay mariage. This simply doesn´t work.

"Had we relied on referendums and the will of the majority, African-Americans would still be denied the right to vote, as would women, and slavery might still be in existence."
You seem to have a very negative attitude towards the majority of people in your country. I personally also see the representative democracy as a better system than the direct democracy, mainly because it is difficult to get decisions done throught that.
However: you can´t expect the representants to be better than the people. In that way any democratic nation has the government it deserves.
By the way: Switzerland has allowed women voting rights in 1971 after a referendum on that issue.
Democracy and basic human rights can´t exists if the people are against them. Everything else is an illusion.

Marriage was not a rule in the entire history of mankind and the married couples dont get children because they are married. Getting children is a biological process which is supported by marriage of aman and a woman. Marriage is not a requirement for it, thus why it cannot be called a rule for anything. Mankind has grown quite fine without the existence of marriage before this was invented by the church. A man and a woman can live together and make children without being married or live together married and decide to not have children. Marriage is just a word for something - namely the church sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. A better way to solve this entire thing would be to have people form civil unions instead of marriages.

The Black Forrest


"But I weigh in on the "We are not a true democracy" argument. As it was said we are a democracy and a republic. As such the majority does not automatically win.
Look at the last election!"
That could happend in any country depending on the voting system: it could happend in the UK as well as in France parlamentarian elections, as well as in Germany.
By the way. At the general election in Germany 1998 the almost missed to count 30000 absentee ballots. It didn´t change the result in a substantial manner, it was just about one seat. But if an election is that close like it was in Florida every country would have problems. But you solved this issue in the way in which it was meant to be solved. Through the rule of law.

And the law doesn´t allow gay marriage anyway, regardless of an amendment in the constituition or without an amendment in the constituition.
Democrats and Republicans are both against gay marriage.

@Incertonia

"And you still haven't answered the arguments I posted above about sterile heterosexual couples--should they be denied the right to marry because they can't procreate?"
Hey, calm down. I´m not an answering maschine. You have to leave the decision to what comments I answer and how I answer to me.
Regarding to your point: exceptions don´t questions the rule. More than 80% of maried couples are having children. That a minority don´t have children for whatever reasons doesn´t change the meaning and importance of mariage. Exceptions don´t break the rule or in other words exceptions are proving the rule. You are always going to find exceptions in everything. But as long as they are just exceptions they are irrelevant and can´t be used as an argument against the rule. So: don´t worry: I neither want to make parenthood compulsory or reject people the right to have a Joseph marriage (a mariage without sex), or other unusual things.
But, I can assure you...gay marriage would still be the exception...and would probably be less than that ~20% figure for childless couples
so why not say "well marriage is between a man and a woman, except for gay marriages." doesn't that just prove (somehow by your logic) the rule that a marriage is between a man and a woman

Sliders

"But, I can assure you...gay marriage would still be the exception...and would probably be less than that ~20% figure for childless couples
so why not say "well marriage is between a man and a woman, except for gay marriages." doesn't that just prove (somehow by your logic) the rule that a marriage is between a man and a woman"
No: that´s the basic. They can´t be any execptions. Otherwise you end up with multiple wives or multiple husbands. Mariage is between one man and one woman is the law.
But you can´t of course make having children for maried people compulsory. However: the overwhelming majority do have children. One reason to support and to strenghten this instituition.

Homosexuals can´t have children naturaly. Therefore such relationships can´t be treated the same as heterosexual onces. You have to treat the same thing the same way but different things differently. That is what the equal protection clause is all about. Therefore I would see gay mariage as unconstituitional anyway, even without an amendment.

I still wonder why people say marriage is between a man and a woman. When i think about a marriage i think about two people that are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I don't see why we should exclude same sex couples from this. If they are in love and they want to spend the rest of their lives together, let them marry eachother i say. there are some other requirements than just being in love, i know that, but these are to protect the persons that 'want' to marry against things like forced marriages. Therefor we require the two persons to be consenting and by extention capable of giving consent. This translates into the two persons being consenting adults in our current system. note that these limitations are not to prevent two people that are in love from getting married, but to protect them from being abused (people getting forced into marriage, children getting sold by their parents, ...). I don't see how a rule 'gay people shall not be allowed to marry eachother' protects two gay people. they are just two people in love and if they are consenting adults then they should be given the right to marry just as heterosexual people are given the right to marry the man/woman they love.

"Mariage is between one man and one woman is the law."

No it is not the law yet! The US President is trying to make it law and will hopefully fail. Dont even start using straw men, thats lame.

Secondly, why does it concern you in any way who loves who and who marries who? I dont get it.. it is nobodys business restrcting who may love who in times as these wherelove is the most rare commodity to be found. With the world being overpopulated already, why do you want to specially protect heterosexual breeding? If anything, it should be limited.

Homosexuals can´t have children naturaly. Therefore such relationships can´t be treated the same as heterosexual onces. You have to treat the same thing the same way but different things differently. That is what the equal protection clause is all about. Therefore I would see gay mariage as unconstituitional anyway, even without an amendment.Tell my ex-wife that--she birthed two children before she came to the realization that she was lesbian, or rather, stopped denying her inner feelings. Homosexual people can reproduce--you need to get that through your skull.

@Incertonia

Tell my ex-wife that--she birthed two children before she came to the realization that she was lesbian, or rather, stopped denying her inner feelings. Homosexual people can reproduce--you need to get that through your skull.

Well: it must have been a hard time for you.
However: you can´t deny facts. You can´t get children through a homosexual relationship. You can only get them naturaly through a heterosexual relationship.
One reason for the special protection of mariage.

I think government should have no say in marriage at all. None. Its a waste of money and its wrong, marriage is a personal issue not for the gov to deal with. Discrimination by the state and such against homosexuals and such is also wrong they should be treated equally with heteros.

@Gigatron,

first of all I´m a man. So you can leave out the she/it parth


"Mariage is between one man and one woman is the law."

No it is not the law yet! The US President is trying to make it law and will hopefully fail. Dont even start using straw men, thats lame.

It is law, man. It is just not written in the constituition. Under Clinton the US Congress passed a mariage protection act stating this fact. Many other laws, written and unwritten are stating the same fact.


Secondly, why does it concern you in any way who loves who and who marries who? I dont get it.. it is nobodys business restrcting who may love who in times as these wherelove is the most rare commodity to be found. With the world being overpopulated already, why do you want to specially protect heterosexual breeding? If anything, it should be limited.

It concerns me not in any way. But it concerns me when the state gets involved, which would be the case by civil unions or - even worse- by gay mariage. That affects politics and gives tax benefits to people who shouldn´t get such benefits. By the way: I have stated that several times already: the world population development is developing pretty flat. Except in the muslim world and parts of Africa the population growth is pretty low and declining (China, India, Latin America). Many countries and region are even facings declining populations (like Japan, Russia, Europe) and enormous problems because of that.
An important reason to strengthen mariage and families. A fact which even the current german government realizes.
Without more children Europe is not going to maintain its economic strength, to even keep is infrastructure and its importance in the world.

@Incertonia



Well: it must have been a hard time for you.
However: you can´t deny facts. You can´t get children through a homosexual relationship. You can only get them naturaly through a heterosexual relationship.
One reason for the special protection of mariage.
so once we've figured out how to create babies using both members of a homosexual couples genes, then can they be "married"?
I mean, naturally, it'll take artificial insemination, and more...but I certainly think it's possible

so once we've figured out how to create babies using both members of a homosexual couples genes, then can they be "married"?
I mean, naturally, it'll take artificial insemination, and more...but I certainly think it's possible

That´s not natural, that is artifical. Do I really need to go more into detail??? I think you know how I mean it.

That´s not natural, that is artifical. Do I really need to go more into detail??? I think you know how I mean it.
OH...so only natural births...which of course comes back to, what if the hetero couple can't conceive for whatever reason?

That´s not natural, that is artifical. Do I really need to go more into detail??? I think you know how I mean it.

How natural is natural for you? How come homosexuality is not natural for you? If you say that artificial insemination is not natural because it does not happen in nature, then you are right. Homosexuality however happens in nature.

That the populations of many western nations are growing slow or even declining cannot be fixed by "specially protecting" marriages. There are a number of factors which make it unfeasible for women or men to have children in todays work-centered and achievement-based societies. Denying gay couples the right to marry will not fix it and is a poor attempt at distracting the masses from truly important issues, which the possibility of gays marrying is not one of.

so what your argument comes down to is:
*Homosexuals can't get married because they can't have children naturally (with each other)
*Infertile heterosexuals can still get married because they're just the exception and the exception proves the rule
*Homosexuals are the exception to the rule that exceptions prove the rule, proving that it's true that exceptions prove the rule

seems pretty sound

so...multiple partner relationships could result in children, if both genders are represented...and you already said that you're against that...

but then, there's probably some other, equally logical reason why those relationships are bad.

it and is a poor attempt at distracting the masses from truly important issues, which the possibility of gays marrying is not one of.

If it isn´t an important issue, why are you so much pushing for it????

so what your argument comes down to is:
*Homosexuals can't get married because they can't have children naturally (with each other)
*Infertile heterosexuals can still get married because they're just the exception and the exception proves the rule
*Homosexuals are the exception to the rule that exceptions prove the rule, proving that it's true that exceptions prove the rule

seems pretty sound

so...multiple partner relationships could result in children, if both genders are represented...and you already said that you're against that...

but then, there's probably some other, equally logical reason why those relationships are bad.


hey, hey, hey. First of all: the question is not whether such relationships do occur. The question is whether they should be given special protection by the state (tax benefits, e.g.). And that should be given to marriage only. And that shall be defined as an monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. That´s our culture. POINT. I´m conservative and I don´t want to see the destruction of it. It is this culture which developed the democracy and the freedom we live in today. It would be the highest stupidity to destroy this culture and its values and concepts.
Democracy and freedom doesn´t exist in a vacuum, it exist in a culture. And this culture ought to be preserved and not to be destroyed.

This issue becomes important when people viamently want to take away a basic right of two consenting adults. Personally, again, its none of your damn buissness what those two people do. Again, the government has no right to judge on morality. Nor do you. Nor do I. The government has to either allow Same-Sex Marrages, (Or civil Unions) or abolish any benefit to a heterosexual married couple. Also, giving gays civil-unions, while keeping marraige for Heterosexuals is not an answer. We have a precident that doesn't allow that. Its called Brown vs. Board of Education. Seperate ain't Equal folks.

As for natural, is it natural for someone to develop a bond with someone else, that just happens to be sexual in nature? Probably so. So what the hell does it matter what the others gender happens to be?

And Culture? If I remember correctly, our culture used to be puritan. Our culture used to not let women show there ankles. Things change. Its the nature of our 'culture'.

hey, hey, hey. First of all: the question is not whether such relationships do occur. The question is whether they should be given special protection by the state (tax benefits, e.g.). And that should be given to marriage only. And that shall be defined as an monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. why? (specifically to the bolded question)

why?
I have already answered that. I don´t want to repeat the arguments over an over again. It is our culture. It makes sense, it is the basic cell of society, where the future generation grows up, e.g.

Why do you want to destroy our culture????

I don't, I want to enhance it
(same reason that I'm an engineer...always trying to make things better)
why would you rather stagnate?

Why do you want to dogmaticly preserve it, even if some of it may be wrong?! It is your opionion that it is the cell of society, and really, I don't think it is. A lot of things are more important then making sure your kid don't come out 'queer' or what ever the slur word is these days.

We do not want to destroy our culture. But we do also not want to protect discrimination against members of our culture who are the same humans as everyone else. That allowing gay marriages destroys anything is far fetched and unproven. In fact, in some countries it is already possible and gues what, they did not implode over night, neither will the rather small minority of gays have any affect on population growth or decline in any way.

There are 3 problems with gay marriage.
1. Does it get recognised out of state?
2. Sexual Discrimination suits against churches and states.
3. From abortion we see that this may create violent fanatics. The buring down of abortion clinics. Do we really want another KKK, for gays?

The FMA solves the first 2 problems, but not the third. The fact is that both sides on this issue leave little to compromise. Its all or nothing.

So we shouldn't allow it because it may cause conflict? These are peoples freedom's were talking about. Thats like saying, "Well... we shouldn't allow interracial marriages, because it may not be recognized out of state." Or "We shouldn't allow blacks to vote, because it might cause hate groups to come after them."

I know your concerned with safety... but personal freedoms and rights are sometimes more important. Sometimes.

Or did I misinterpret your statement?

Also heterosexual marriages have everything to gain (the continued benefits of being special) and Gays everything to lose (the ability ot get married with the side effect of gaining benefits). If neither was specially recognized with tax benefits or special rights, no discrimination would take place, which would ideally be the outcome.

There are 3 problems with gay marriage.
1. Does it get recognised out of state?
2. Sexual Discrimination suits against churches and states.
3. From abortion we see that this may create violent fanatics. The buring down of abortion clinics. Do we really want another KKK, for gays?

The FMA solves the first 2 problems, but not the third. The fact is that both sides on this issue leave little to compromise. Its all or nothing.
so...we shouldn't allow gay marriage....because if the government gives them rights, someone else is just gonna take their rights away?
Allowing couples the option does not force them to take it. Gay couples would realize the dangers of being wed- as they realize the dangers now of simply coming out.
We need to create a solution for the actual problem...which is the violence towards the gay couples, not their love for one another
(take away rights of the criminals- not the victims)
I mean, it's not foolproof, but if I go outside today, I may be mugged...that doesn't mean the government should ban me from leaving my house

Oh, and many people are arguing for middle ground- the civil union

I, and many others in these parts, think that the civil union is what the govt. recognizes (hetero or homo) and that marriage is what the church (of your choice) recognizes

And finally, I'm still yet to hear anyone say that churches should be required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, though I'm sure there are those that believe it. Naturally, the church, a private institution, should be able to choose who they wed.

My opinion is this:

I could care less. If a man and a woman are seen kissing on the street, nothing is said of it. If two men (or women) are saw kissing on the street, nothing is said of that much either, today anyways.

What a person does or does not do in there own bedroom is none of our business, and this is what it essenially boils down to. Yes, people will say what about insurance, death benefits, the like, but if you look at it with open eyes, it comes right back to regulating what someone does in there own bedroom.

I am a chrsitian man who believes that we are all loved by a greater power than us. Why can't the people here on earth be just as happy and feel loved by there wife and/or partner in union or marriage.

We have too many things on our plate today with war, starvation, homelessness, and diesease, that we should not spend all this time worrying about something that in 20 years will not amount to anything but a few pages in someones history book. Because in my mind, even if this does get passed (which i don't think it will), someone down the road will challenge it, it will be repealed and this all looks like a massive waste of time.

Let people be people. We are suppose to have a free country and if some man (or woman) what to marry someone of the same sex, let them. What I cannot understand is why everyone is so paranoid about this. If someone loves someone else, whether hetero- or homo-sexually, let that person make up there own minds as to whether to marry.

Sorry about climbing on my soap box, but this is something I feel needed to be said.

Just a short comment on the church being a private institution.. it is not :) Religion is not a private insitution. It is something one may or may not believe in. The ceremony of the wedding is part of the religion, which can be changed to allow for such things, just like the interpretation of the bible was changed to allow things today which were earlier forbidden. What is required is that enough people put pressure on those who make the decisions or that the churches are in danger oflosing too many people due to their stubborn attitude and hate mongering. Marriage ceremonies in the church can be allowed by the people making up the church. Without the people believing in it, religion is nothing.

I have already answered that. I don´t want to repeat the arguments over an over again. It is our culture. It makes sense, it is the basic cell of society, where the future generation grows up, e.g.

Why do you want to destroy our culture????

funny, that's exactly what the anti-abolitionists said when they were asked to give up a tradition (slavery) that has existed LONGER than the western conception of marriage.

i want to "destroy your culture" in the same way my grandmother wanted to destroy the culture that forbade her the vote, and the same way my uncle wished to destroy the culture that forbade him to use the white man's bathrooms. there are many aspects of entrenched tradition that need some destroying, and just because we have done something for a long time doesn't make it right or good.

JJZaraland,

if you are a religious christian you should read the bible. Start right at the begining. With Adam and Eve. That´s the modell. One man and one woman. The christian religion is very clear on that one. I´m not religious anyway. But I expect someone who claims he is should at least stand to the principals of his religion and not running behind the "spirit of time".
Otherwise I can´t take your claim seriously.

@Gigatron,

you can´t give benefits to everybody.
You have to make a choice.
Giving tax cuts for gays means that the state has less money to spent for children, families, e.g. That are the facts.

Just a short comment on the church being a private institution.. it is not :) Religion is not a private insitution. It is something one may or may not believe in. The ceremony of the wedding is part of the religion, which can be changed to allow for such things, just like the interpretation of the bible was changed to allow things today which were earlier forbidden. What is required is that enough people put pressure on those who make the decisions or that the churches are in danger oflosing too many people due to their stubborn attitude and hate mongering. Marriage ceremonies in the church can be allowed by the people making up the church. Without the people believing in it, religion is nothing.
well sorry for the confusion
what I meant by "private institution" was basically "not government" which means they should be able to discriminate all they want...If it loses all their believers...then that's too bad
then again, if it gains them believers, that's too bad too...:(
but I do believe that people should be allowed to be bigoted...while the government should not

@Bottle

it is pretty outrageous and stupid to compare this question with slavery. Former and present Afro-American rights activists have therefore correctly rejected this comparison.
Do what you want, but don´t expect the government to give you a tax benefit for that.

@Gigatron,

you can´t give benefits to everybody.
You have to make a choice.
Giving tax cuts for gays means that the state has less money to spent for children, families, e.g. That are the facts.
ok...gays...made my choice

oh sorry...guess that wasn't really @ me

Already at least 60% of america is against gay marriage... with the right campaigning, it could happen. The reason why we need an AMMENDMENT is because this is not a state matter... if you make it a state matter, then even if you manage to ban gay marriage in your state, and manage to not have any wacko activist judges, your people can still go to the next-door state and get married and then come back and your state has to recognize it. Basically, the laws on the state level are useless, and easily overruled... a consitutional ammedment, although it sounds extreme, is the only solution.

Or you could live with it, since it does not affect you in any way whatsoever.

@Bottle

it is pretty outrageous and stupid to compare this question with slavery. Former and present Afro-American rights activists have therefore correctly rejected this comparison.
Do what you want, but don´t expect the government to give you a tax benefit for that.

your only argument against gay marriage seems to be that the tradition has only one man and one woman in wedlock, so i was simply pointing out that tradition isn't an argument for anything...our "tradition" was, for thousands of years, to teach that the Earth is the center of the universe, but we threw out that tradition when we came to terms with the evidence that we were incorrect.

gay sex cannot produce offspring, true, but much heterosexual sex cannot either. gay people have been shown through research to be just as capable as parents, and we certainly have no shortage of children waiting to be adopted. homosexuality appears frequently and successfully in nature, thus making it, by definition, as natural as heterosexuality. there is no concrete reason to afford different status to homosexuals than to heterosexuals, it all just comes down to the "that's ICKY!!!" attitudes of some nosy right-wingers.

and to say that gays shouldn't get the same "tax breaks" for their relationship is, interestingly, the exact same attitude most people took on inter-racial marriage some 50 years ago. after all, the tradition of marrying within one's race goes back even farther than prohibitions against homosexuality. of course, it has been proven that inter-racial couples are just as able to raise happy kids, and are just as natural and happy as their uni-racial counterparts, but that knowledge has only come to us through the tireless efforts of people who refused to just shut up and stay in the bedroom...people who insisted on their "tax break" are what we now call "civil rights leaders."

you STILL have failed to say why we should let infertile couples marry, women past menopause stay married, or why children shouldn't be the requisite for confirming the status of a marriage...after all, it would be just as easy to write those things into law as it would to pass an anti-gay ammendment. yes, they are "exceptions to the rule," just like gay marriages are the exception to the rule. so if your "defense of marriage" is all about procreation then why aren't you being consistent? and if it is about something more than just the procreative issue, then why are you trying to muddy the waters with an irrelevent issue?

yes, they are "exceptions to the rule," just like gay marriages are the exception to the rule. so if your "defense of marriage" is all about procreation then why aren't you being consistent? and if it is about something more than just the procreative issue, then why are you trying to muddy the waters with an irrelevent issue?
come on, this is so old...we've already covered it...gays are the exception to the exception rule- cause hey, that's where the line is drawn
we didn't make the line
it's our culture
we can't control our culture

come on, this is so old...we've already covered it...gays are the exception to the exception rule- cause hey, that's where the line is drawn
we didn't make the line
it's our culture
we can't control our culture

oh yeah, i forgot! our true master is Culture, which we have no right to question and cannot exert any control over!

no wonder most of the anti-gays are religious...this Culture crap is a dead ringer for their "God" chappie, too.

Cloture is when someone moves on the floor to end debate and start voting on the amendment. It’s what you need to move past a filibuster (2/3rds I think).

Interesting. I am not an export on political terminology but I think that in the UK, this would be a formal motion that "The Question be Now Put" which moves straight to the vote as oppossed to a Formal Motion that "The Question be NOT put" which immediately destroys the amendmemt in question.

However, I'll happily stand corrected by any politics students out there!

Esteemed colleges and defenders of civil freedoms, please, may I direct your attention towards this news item?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/14/same-sex_marriage040714.html

The is good but expected news.

Kyb: Sorry but your definition of democracy is simply the greek version. We don't have that in this country. It's a democracy and a republic.

Also, having children should not be the definition of marriage. The aristocracy of Europe didn't see it as the prime reason in the past. The concept of doweries showed that it wasn't a prime factor.

People should have children just because they want them. Suggesting they have to be relgiously married is crazy.

As to the argument of shrinking populations? Gay marriage has nothing to do with that.

To even suggest it; tellls me you are one of those "Gay people choose that life style types."

As to tax cuts for gays, again you overestimate the amount of gay people in the country. Also, the purpose of marriage/civil union is not fully for tax breaks. Currently, a gay couple can stay together for say 7 years. They build up assets and then one dies. If there is family they have the right to take the assets over the partner. Even if the person had severed contact with his family.

You identified yourself as a Christian. You didn't need to; we could already tell. You like many of your bretheren can't help themselves but poke around in everybody elses business. ;)

Gay marriage is hardly going to cause the downfall of western civilization.

Hmmmm I wonder what Jesus would have said. ;)

What would Jesus say?

"Oh my DAD! Look, guys, I thought I made it clear. I'd show up sooner or later, you guys just chill out and wait! Be nice and all that crap! I mean, I can't seem to leave you guys alone for a second, much less a couple hundred years. Is it really that hard? Just...STOP! Calm down, and chill out!"


And hey, if your problem is taxes, then how about we get rid of ALL tax benifits? Get the government out of marrige entirely.


But to say "they don't deserve tax breaks, WE do" only makes you a bigoted fool.

There is also a way to amend the Constitution with 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying the amendment. Prohibition ended this way. A "definition of marriage" amendment will not pass through Congress, but there is a good chance enough state legislatures would approve it.

Check your amendment procedures again. The 3/4 of states ratification only takes place after Congress passes the amendment.

The whole FMA debate is really about making the Defense of Marriage Act a part of the Constitution. As a conservative I would rather not have to go to the constitution to resolve this debate, I would rather have each state decide. The only problem with that is that we have a Supreme Court that thinks its a legislature that can write law.

Strange how finding anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional on equal protection grounds is deemed "judicial activism" while intervening in an election in a blatantly partisan manner is considered "good judgment."

So as a Christian I would like to see this Amendment pass. Don't get me wrong, I have homosexual friends, while I may detest their lifestyle, I accept the person as they are.

And you would be violating the third formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative by doing so. "Love the sinner,but hate the sin" is simply a cop out - a poor excuse for not acting as Jesus exhorted; but I guess "loving thy neighbor as thyself" is just so passe these days.

On the other hand we have extreme homosexual activists that not only want us to accept them as the people they are but they want us to accept their lifestyle as well.

Funny,if I were to say "We have extreme Christian activists that not only want us to accept them as the people they are but they want to jam their religion down our throats" I would get jumped on by all the Christian conservatives on this forum,but its perfectly fine to say the same sort of thing about homosexuals. Odd that.

If the Supreme Court decides to make homosexual marriage the law of the land by overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (highly likely as the law is being challenged in the lower courts right now) then homosexuals can claim discrimination from every Christian who decides to stand on their moral beliefs and get away with it. Church tax-exempt status could be revoked because ministers and priests preach "hate" for the homosexual lifestyle. Churches could be forced into holding homosexual marriage ceremonies.

LOGICAL FALLACY #1: APPEAL TO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
LOGICAL FALLACY #2: SLIPPERY-SLOPE

By the way, 60% of people in the US oppose homosexual marriage.

Can you cite the study you got that 60% opposition to gay marriage from? Or are you simply repeating Michael Savage's idiotic talking points?

The amendment will pass. The hatred Liberals against it show for Bush takes away their "higher ground" arguements, since they're being just as hatist as the awful homophobes, just in a different way.

who gives a flying fuck? just let the gays get married and lets get on with life!

gah! :headbang:

My idea: Erase the term "marriage" from every legal document. Replace it with civil union. It's the word "marriage" that people are concerned about. The government should butt out about the definition of the word, and leave it up to society.

I dont think it will pass its unconstitunal as far as I can tell

The amendment will pass. The hatred Liberals against it show for Bush takes away their "higher ground" arguements, since they're being just as hatist as the awful homophobes, just in a different way.

Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but according to the news item posted earlier, they decided to dump it.

Anyway, all this banter about activist judges and whatever is really BS. Activist judges played a major part in ending segregation. Also, if you don't want your culture to ever change, go join an amish village, because the nature of culture is to change. And usually for the better. Just because something is part of your culture doesn't make it right. In the middle east, it is considered part of their culture to be able to have four wives. It is also considered part of their culture to be able to treat women as slaves and beat them if they so much as show an ankle. Is this deserving of special protection because it is part of their "culture"? Slavery used to be a part of the culture of the US of A, does that mean we should reinstitute it? And when you talk about "our values" don't try to act like it's something all americans should think. Discrimination and hate are not family values and never will be.

And it is hypocritical to use the bible to justify your bigotry. The bible also says that you should not cut the hair above your temple or shave your beard. If you do either you are just as sinful as you claim gays to be. It also says that women are not supposed to go to church the week of their period or the week after. If your daughter has pre-marital sex, according to the bible you are to stone her to death in the middle of town or sell her into slavery. Do you eat pork? Because the bible says that you aren't supposed to eat pork in the very same section that it says you aren't supposed to make love to those in your gender.

Maybe the government should get out of marriage, seeing as so many people see it as a religious issue.

Besides, I would think that the institution of divorce is a much greater threat to marriage than homosexuals getting married. And it also happens to be against some people's religion... why don't I see conservatives railing against that?

Time for a full update. Earlier today, the US Senate voted on a cloture motion to bring the Federal marraige Amendment to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote. It needed 60 votes to pass. It received 48, thereby falling short of even the basic majority Republican leaders had hoped to salvage from the wreckage of the plan to get John Kerry and John Edwards on record as opposing the amendment. Notable among the Republicans who voted against the cloture motion was Senator John McCain of Arizona who called the Amendment un-Republican.

IT was defeated overwhelmingly in the Senate.

There already IS an amendment regarding Gay Marriage.

The First Amendment!

"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. "


What the italicised portion is referring to is that congress cannot make any law that directly violates the free exercise of any religion(Except for safety. Obviusly, we can't allow human sacrifices. duh.)

Now. Marriage is both a legal contract AND a religious rite. If it wasn't a religious rite, then the whole gay marriage issue would even exist. But it is. So what it comes down to is this: If a recognized church approves of a gay marriage, then the government has NO RIGHT to refuse it. Nor do they have the right to refuse the legalities of it because any law doing so would prevent the free exercise of that religion.

Funny how nobody has brought this up to a court before. :P

Time for a full update. Earlier today, the US Senate voted on a cloture motion to bring the Federal marraige Amendment to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote. It needed 60 votes to pass. It received 48, thereby falling short of even the basic majority Republican leaders had hoped to salvage from the wreckage of the plan to get John Kerry and John Edwards on record as opposing the amendment. Notable among the Republicans who voted against the cloture motion was Senator John McCain of Arizona who called the Amendment un-Republican.

McCain would have been a republican I would have voted for in the presidential race. This is simply one more example of why I like him. :)

I have a tremendous amount of respect for McCain.
Standing up against this bill is the right thing to do, and few republicans have done so.
McCain is one of the only honorable men in the Republican Party left.

I neither want to make parenthood compulsory or reject people the right to have a Joseph marriage (a mariage without sex), or other unusual things.

You do realize that many religious denominations including Christians do not see an "unconsummated marriage" as a marriage, correct?

Sorry but your definition of democracy is simply the greek version. We don't have that in this country. It's a democracy and a republic


Well. That was what I was trying to say. Republic and democracy don´t exclude each other.
A republic is generally the name for a state which has an elected head of state (and not a monarch). The state is not necessarily democratic, but it can be a democratic state (with a representative democracy).


You identified yourself as a Christian. You didn't need to; we could already tell. You like many of your bretheren can't help themselves but poke around in everybody elses business.


No, I´m not religious. I´m not a born-again christian (or however you call it). I´m not even American. So stop putting wrong labels on me. I believe in evolution, creation is NOT true. I don´t go to church except for rare occasions. I´m even not a member of church (to avoid church tax).
But I´m conservative and I believe in conservative values.

I dislike the political left and the religious left. They meddle around in other peoples business increasing taxes, passing stupid laws on the labour market (some corrected now), on taxes and on the environment. That´s at least the situation in my country.
We need a conservative revolution under the premises your former president Ronald Reagan has said: "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." The left has not really realized that. Some steps go in the right direction, but it is to slow, to much hesitation and there are already signs for a back-lash and a fall-back into the old ways of the left (heavy internal-party opposition).

The economic and social situation of my country and the incapabiltiy of the government to make a consistant reform policy to adress those issues that is the thing I´m most concerned about. I hope for a "regime-change" after the next general election. It is looking pretty good for the conservative and liberals to take over the government from the social democrats and the greens.
That this government passed laws allowing civil unions for gays (however with much limitted rights - not comperable to marriages - NO right for adoption for example) is just one tiny thing I dislike about them. Unfortunatley it is not possible to correct that. But it is going to be possible to avoid further bad steps in that direction. After all. The constituition garantees special protection for marriage. That means that giving those instituition the same rights than a marriage would be unconstituitional. That was what the supreme court said unanimously about this issue. 5 judges saw the current version of the law within this limits, 3 considered it already unconstituitional. Anyway: the verdict makes at least clear that expanding the rights of this instituin is almost impossible and giving the same rights as marriage is impossible. That at least is a positive thing which I applaude.

It is not impossible to change the constitution. Marriage as an institution as such is not defined in our constitution, so you might call gays marrying "marriage" aswell, which would make them eligible for special benefits. Due to the division of state and religion, which is in our constitution, you cannot use the christian definition of marriage to justify this paragraph of the constitution.

You do realize that many religious denominations including Christians do not see an "unconsummated marriage" as a marriage, correct?
Your a principaly right. However this Joseph marriage is an exception. It is when husband and wife both go in the marriage agreeing both not to have sexual relations.
However: normally it is that way. By the way: not just by religion but also by state laws. After all there are prentended marriages. One example for them is that one partner wants to enter in the country or to remain there but can´t do that legally. Through the marriage they can (after a period of time) accuire citizenship. Since the state can´t cheque whether they are having sex or not they may look whether they life together and whether they have a double-bed or not if there are reasonable doubts on the seriousness of the marriage.
That it the so-called marriage life-partnership: the citerias are not fixed: But signs for the existence of it is: living together, sharing a bed and having a sexual relationship.

@Gigatron,



"It is not impossible to change the constitution. Marriage as an institution as such is not defined in our constitution, so you might call gays marrying "marriage" aswell, which would make them eligible for special benefits. Due to the division of state and religion, which is in our constitution, you cannot use the christian definition of marriage to justify this paragraph of the constitution."

You are never going to get a two-third majority for that, hehehehe.

By the way: the interpretation of law goes through different stages. The first one is the grammatical interpretation - the wording directly. If you don´t find a clear answer than you have to use other techniques. One of those is the historical reduction. You then asks: What was the intend of the legislature by passing this law. And that is clear. Article 6 of the constituition was passed to protect marriages as an instituition with one man and one woman marrying each other to form a family.
You can´t get away with that. The only way would be to change the law. And for that you would need a 2/3-majority which you are NEVER going to get, heheheh.

@Gigatron,



"It is not impossible to change the constitution. Marriage as an institution as such is not defined in our constitution, so you might call gays marrying "marriage" aswell, which would make them eligible for special benefits. Due to the division of state and religion, which is in our constitution, you cannot use the christian definition of marriage to justify this paragraph of the constitution."

You are never going to get a two-third majority for that, hehehehe.

By the way: the interpretation of law goes through different stages. The first one is the grammatical interpretation - the wording directly. If you don´t find a clear answer than you have to use other techniques. One of those is the historical reduction. You then asks: What was the intend of the legislature by passing this law. And that is clear. Article 6 of the constituition was passed to protect marriages as an instituition with one man and one woman marrying each other to form a family.
You can´t get away with that. The only way would be to change the law. And for that you would need a 2/3-majority which you are NEVER going to get, heheheh.
Why not? Because the majority of the parliament is as old-fashioned and conservative as you?

Why not? Because the majority of the parliament is as old-fashioned and conservative as you?

Yes they are. What party is in favour of gay marriage??? Probably the greens.
SPD, CDU, CSU and FDP are all against gay marriage.
The same is the case in the US. Both republicans and democrats are against gay marriage. They only differ in the civil union issue, but they both are opposed to gay marriage.

Hmmm...so why can't gay and lesbian people marry again? This is what I've gotten so far. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

1) Religious Reasons.
Read article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

2) Culture reasons.
This goes off the assumption that no institutes want to give people of the same sex a marrige. This is untrue. Many institutes that were not courthouses were marrying people of the same sex.

3) Homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore should be encouraged.
Sorry, but if it consistantly appears in "nature," then it isn't "un-natural"

4) It will be the doorway to other things, such as bestiality and pedophile marriges.
Neither group can give their consent, therefore they cannot be married.

5) It isn't benificiary to the human race; children cannot naturally come from a same-sex relationship, and as such they should be discouraged.
Children cannot also come from a relationship in which one or both members of said relationship are sterile/cannot give birth. This includes relationships in which one or both members are too old. Should these be disbanded?


So, by all means, please point out where I'm wrong.

*SNIP*

I dislike the political left and the religious left. They meddle around in other peoples business increasing taxes, passing stupid laws on the labour market (some corrected now), on taxes and on the environment. That´s at least the situation in my country.


Sorry for the assumptions on where you are from. Also, understand where you are comming from with the democracy stuff so nothing to add to it.


We need a conservative revolution under the premises your former president Ronald Reagan has said: "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." The left has not really realized that. Some steps go in the right direction, but it is to slow, to much hesitation and there are already signs for a back-lash and a fall-back into the old ways of the left (heavy internal-party opposition).

Well the left in our country is different from other countries but lets talk about Ronnie. He was right to a point but he also conviently dropped a bit of history. Eliminate govement medelling and you move the US back about 150 years. Worker safety was barely existent and child labor (or labour ;) ) was allowed. Businessmen have to be "monitored" if they are allowed to "bend the rules;" they will do it especially if a great deal of money can be made.

Look at Enron. Ken Lay was screaming about he evil government was regulating far too much and yet ordered his people to corner the power market.

Look at the Savings and Loan debacle. It would have been far worst if the goverment didn't have any power.

Look at the Securities and Exchange Commission. It exists because of goverment.

Superfund clean up and toxic dumping.....

So the assertion that business unregulated is a good thing; is wrong.

Now having said that. There does need to be a balance. There are questionable activities of the goverment.....