Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

Funny, that's the exact same argument that was used against interracial marriage.

Do you think that the will of the majority should have prevailed in those states where most people thought that interracial marriages should remain illegal?

Response: No. This issue should not be reduced to one of majority opinion. This goes back to my earlier post regarding absolute rights and absolute wrongs. The prohibition of interracial marriage violated Biblical ethics and morality. It was rightfully corrected. Homosexual marriages violate Biblical ethics and morality. As such, they should remain prohibited. If we (society) are unable to pick a "measuring stick" by which right and wrong are determined, then there is really no such thing as right or wrong. It's all a matter of opinion.

 

As long as we're talking about amending the Constitution.....



There have only been 27 amendments to our Constitution. The last basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent that they do today.

The American people have shown that they don't want to trivialize our Constitution with an endless succession of amendments. The unnecessary so-called Equal Rights Amendment was turned away, and amendments like one banning flag burning have never even made it off the launching pad.

But .. since the subject has been broached, here are a few ideas for Constitutional amendments that I think would be a grand idea.

First, an amendment to repeal and amendment.

The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.

Second...the Bricker Amendment.

The Bricker Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1952. Some Americans actually think that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That may not be so. There have been federal court rulings which state that treaties duly ratified by the Senate can have a force under law that is superior to that of our Constitution. Some argue that this application is severely limited, others say that today's activist courts could expand this doctrine to the point that our Constitution takes second place in the "law of the land" list to treaties. Some examples? How about the Kyoto treaty? To what extent would our economic liberties be violated if Kyoto became the supreme law of the land?

OK ... back to the Bricker Amendment. Here it is, in its entirety:

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Does anyone see a real problem with this? How could anyone really object to an amendment that cements our Constitution in place as the supreme law of the land? Well ... the Bricker Amendment was defeated in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 42-50. Republicans for ... Democrats against.

An amendment limiting government's right to seize private property.

It is an abomination that our Supreme Court has now given the green light to government to seize the private property of citizens without any due process at all. If you are found in an airport, a bus terminal, on an interstate highway ... virtually anywhere ... with a wad of cash in your pocket, the police can simply take the cash and send you on your way. In this case the government assumes that you have committed a crime, administers punishment, and sends you packing. How about a Constitutional amendment to protect your property against government seizure without due process?

Eminent Domain Abuse

Again, thanks to a ruling from the Supremes, governments across the country can now take your real estate from you and hand it over to another private citizen or developer simply because the government believes that the new owner will pay more in property taxes than you do. We need a Constitutional amendment to clearly define "public use" and set strong new limits on eminent domain.

 

I was referring to adoptions, guardianships, and the use of artifical medical means to accomplish pregnancy.

My point, however, is that there are children known to me personally being raised by same sex couples. These people provide support and care for these children, whatever thier biological origins.

In New mexico, at least, it is illegal to refuse to grant an adoption petition merely because the adopting couple is same-sex.

 

These two issues, especially the emminent domain issue, have been in the news a lot recently, including a segment on 60 Minutes. Their report on this issue made it seem like the government has gotten way out of hand in recent years.
Jack

 

Adoption by gays

>>In New mexico, at least, it is illegal to refuse to grant an adoption petition merely because the adopting couple is same-sex.<<

Gays couples can legally adopt children in every state except here in Florida. They can be foster parents here, and several have been named foster parents of the year, only to have their petition for adoptions refused.

Now, the real kicker, individual gays can adopt, but not couples. Anyone want to try to explain that one?

If the question of what is a marriage is that it is there for the children's sake, then isn't a married couple of any sex better for the children?

 

Here is my 5 cents,

First, IMHO.... an amendment to outlaw gay marriages is sliding down a slippery slope. Please dont open up a pandora's box. Remember a few years ago when the issue of flag burnings and an amendment to ban such. The constitution is vague for a reason. Take the Texas Consistution. There are amendments for everything...Teacher pay and the like. There are amendments to update or disavow earlier admendments. The constitution has been around for over 200 years . It is a living, breathing document. There have been mistakes(18th ) and then we fixed them. I am speaking from a historian's view( IMHO) .


P.S My middle sister is gay ......so I speaking from the middle, not speaking for any side.

 

Theologically, I'm opposed (big surprise). Politically/constitutionally, I'm still fussing with the issue. Will a pres candidate's position determine my vote? Likely not. The ocean is full of fish.
Thanks for your various views, fairly temperately expressed.

Still, why does Gavin Newsom with his marriage licenses remind me of Lester Maddox with his axe handles?

 

History of marriage

I think we also need to take a historical prespective on this. Marriage has for most of western history not been about religion or love. It was about property, alliances, maintaining power, gaining wealth, having a male heir to mainain lines and, in some, cases to get rid of unwanted heirs.

The idea that marriages are design for a loving couple to lovingly raise children in is a new development - as in only in the 20th century.

So the definition, or at least the reason for marriage has changed.

 

No. I am not surprised and actually you and I seem to be in concurrence on this issue. However, I am not opposed to a civil union between two gay partners that would include most of the rights appertaining thereto.

 

Re: History of marriage

I have to agree with Deb on this. What I want to know is what ever happened to the Seperation of Church and State? I can understand why some churches do not allow gay marriage. Though many churches do have gay and lesbian ministers......

Some companies, like Apple, already allow for gay couples to have access to their life partners insurance. Many gay people will still get married even though its illegal......

Personally, gay marriage doesn't effect me. If they want to get married let them. I feel that they too should be able to pay the mariage penalty on taxes just like I have too.

Besides, I personally feel that this is nothing more than a Right Wing Moral Majority Republican issue. Personally I feel that Bush is worried by the Democrats actually having a good candidate this year and he is just trying to rally votes.

 

Nahhhh.....Nosborne makes sense in spite of that.

 

Civil union v marriage

>>However, I am not opposed to a civil union between two gay partners that would include most of the rights appertaining thereto.<<

I'm curious, what would be the differences between a marriage and a civil union? And if there is no difference then why not call a duck a duck?

I find it interesting that the mere word marriage seems to be what is causing the problem. Many people are willing to grant gays the same rights - as long as it is not called a marriage. As the MA court said though - separate is not equal.

 

Allowing gay marriage would be the ultimate slippery slope. I can almost guarantee that polygamy will be next, followed by God knows what.

I can see the rationalizations now..... "If I want to marry my sister/mother/father/brother, what business is it of the government"?

 

Re: Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage"

I think that depends on what 'marriage' means.

Can society prohibit people from considering themselves married, from saying that they are married or from having other private parties recognize them as married? I'd say no.

Can society define 'marriage' for the practical purposes of tax or inheritance law? I'd say yes.

Can society require that all of its members recognize individuals as married? I'd say no. At least not beyond recognizing that they fall within the legal definitions immediately above.

The bottom line of this debate seems to me to be those laws and collective bargaining contracts that provide for spousal benefits.

 

How about the oppression of women? Their exclusion from voting? I'm sure glad that societal norms are based on an evolving notion of right and wrong. I for one am not too flighty to vote!!!

 

Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is m

Can you please provide me with sufficient evidence and studies to support this statement?

 

How does gay marriage "attack" anything? Claiming that procreation is the prime objective of marriage is crap. Of course, it also makes a convenient roadblock for gay marriage by essentially precluding them from marriage. People don't marry because they are interested in protecting the welfare of hypothetical children at some point in the future. People marry because they love each other and they want the blessings of their friends and loved ones, and, yes, the benefits that society confers on that. In this regard there is absolutely no difference between gay and straight marriage.

The dynamics of this argument are no different than the argument for granting blacks freedom or woman and blacks the right to vote. This issue will be resolved in the same way. Gays will eventually win the right to marriage because it makes sense. They deserve to be regarded equally by society, and by God too!

White males can still vote, despite the fact that blacks and women now join them in the polling place. Straight couples will still be able to marry (and divorce), just as before, despite the fact that gay couples may also be getting health benefits and rights of inheritance etc.

Most who feel threatened now will realize that they aren't threatened at all. Those who continue to feel threatened will realize the only real threat is the one presented by living with a small and narrow mind.

 

Could it be...

I really believe the movement toward an amendment to ban gay marriage is simply a backlash by those who fear or despise homosexuality and realize that the trend of public opinion is against them. They are simply trying to head off the time (if the trend continues) when they will be in the minority and gay marriange will be common. To me it is the most bankrupt of notions to inact an amendment for the purpose of preventing (or at least seriously hendering) future generations from adopting laws that coincide the societal norms or morals.

 

So basically your saying the homosexual couples should be treated as second class citizens?

 

Marriage or some close analogue exists everywhere on earth, throughout known history. It's about as close to a cultural universal as there is.

Its roots date back to the stone age and probably to long before humans were even human. (Animals form mating bonds that others in their social groups recognize.) It's something that's ingrained very deeply and fundamentally into everyone's culture and psyche.

I think that the gay marriage debate smears all of this stuff together. What could be (and probably should be) a simple legal question concerning eligibility for spousal benefits somehow expands and transforms into a matter of religious sacraments and revelations, child rearing and procreation, the fundamental shape of social relationships, ultimate moral issues and finally, to what people just feel in their guts.

On some deep level, it isn't even rational.