Equal Rights

[LRB]

The question of what determines a person's sexual orientation is not answered completely, but it is clear however that the vast majority of homosexuals do not make a decision that they prefer members of their own sex. More and more data is uncovered, primarily by geneticist, that we are for the most part "programmed" as it relates to many of our individual traits. From ones ability with math, to one's reasoning abilities, to the failure of some to be able to logicaly think, all the way to perhaps our social inclinations, are given to us by the genes we were given. Those of us who have desires for the opposite sex didn't make the decision one day to be so, we just are attracted/stimulated in that way. It is fair to conclude that homosexuals have gone through the same process. Therefore it is (IMHO) an inate trait which the individual does not elect to have.

We are in the very infancy of our understanding of genetics and how it relates to our traits, actions, etc. All we have now are theories relating genetics to sexual orientation. There is not enough evidence and research to classify the findings as laws. There certainly isn't enough evidence to definitively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no choice in sexual orientation for the majority of people. Throughout history scientific knowledge has been proven to be wrong. My mother was taught in school that the atom was the smallest unit that it was possible to divide matter into. Then in her senior year in high school the nation of Japan learned to their tragedy that this was not the case.

Discrimination is wrong for society, and not discriminating is a legal obligation.

Actually our society depends on the continuation of discrimination and would cease to exist without it. It is a legal obligation to discriminate. By discrimination, I mean the "ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. " * (definition from dictionary.com) Now most likely you are referring to another definition of discrimination which is "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit." * (definition from dictionary.com) Still our society depends under certain circumstances of discriminating against individuals as because they belong to a group. For example, I don't know of any states that issue 12 yearolds to drivers licenses.

[TheBaron]

Originally posted by: steponhens
This is not just about homosexuals getting married. If they are allowed to get married then there will be many other debates about marriage and how it is controlled. What happens to people who want to have more than one wife? If it doesn't hurt anybody else than shouldn't that be allowed? It is a bigger issue than just about homosexuals being able to marry.

I dont see it that way at all. Polygamy was legal at one point, then it was made illegal when the United States conquered part of Mexico which is modern day Utah. Living there was a group of utopians called the Mormons. The US was able to nearly eliminate polygamy without creating a constitutional amendment. Although the legal ground is suspect philosophically, there has never been a time when people have been able to marry within their family or marry animals.

We legalized inter-racial marriage and we still have control over marriage. Why would homosexuality be any different?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

This point of view is in stark contrast to the fairly widely held view that the U.S. Constitution and the Billl of Rights serve to protect the CIVIL rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, yadda, yadda, yadda) of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Actually I would argue that the constituion and the Bill of Rights are in fact an example of the majority of society imposing it's moral code on society as a whole. Our society cannot function without restrictions being placed on individuals for moral reasons. Think how it would be if murder or theft were not crimes. How long would our society flourish without these restrictions?

[TheBaron]

Think how it would be if murder or theft were not crimes

Murder and theft are both illegal not because they are immoral, but because people need protection from having their rights trampled on- most notably the most elementary rights to life and liberty

If your argument is that we are abridging the rights of the murderers to murder then I think it is obvious that
I) A country cannot run without those laws
II) The right to murder someone (pursue happiness) is less elementary than the right to life.

[steponhens]

Baron, are you indifferent on whether marriage should be controlled by the government, or just if the constitution singles out homosexuals? Because you don't seem too concerned that the Mormons were discriminated against because they were a group of Americans that were not allowed to show the love that they had for other human beings. Homosexuals have never been allowed to marry in the US so how is that different than not being able to marry someone in your family? Legally speaking.

[MavKikiNYC]

Our society cannot function without restrictions being placed on individuals for moral reasons.

But one group's morality, even a majority's morality, can't be used to justify the denial of civil rights. At least it hasn't yet.

[TheBaron]

Originally posted by: steponhens
Baron, are you indifferent on whether marriage should be controlled by the government, or just if the constitution singles out homosexuals? Because you don't seem too concerned that the Mormons were discriminated against because they were a group of Americans that were not allowed to show the love that they had for other human beings. Homosexuals have never been allowed to marry in the US so how is that different than not being able to marry someone in your family? Legally speaking.

I wasnt talking about the constitutionality or the morality of the Edmunds-Tucker act of 1876 (and Reynolds versus the United States). I was just saying that the argument that making homosexual behavior (most specifically marriage) legal would not disable our ability to control incest or beatiality.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: TheBaron
BUT, the "slippery slope" argument is a bad argument because we have laws based on some religious (moral) codes, but not on others.

During the civil rights movement people said that allowing black people to marry white people was the first step in allowing people to marry their dogs, etc. After all, marrying outside your race is against the same good book that says that you should not sleep with your sister. Nothing like that ever happened. Giving two loving people, whether white black, male or female the ability to marry does not mean that we will allow people to marry within their family or outside our species. That is just false.

This is completely different. Blacks have married whites for CENTURIES so is not a true variant. The situation you describe was just a temporary period of time when it was unpopular to marry a different race. The same prejudice has existed for many races.

But there are few historical precendents for homosexuals marrying. Thus it would start the slippery slope.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

But one group's morality, even a majority's morality, can't be used to justify the denial of civil rights. At least it hasn't yet.

Tell that to the American Indians.

[TheBaron]

explain to me how a history of discrimination affects the ability to control marriage, Max.

Blacks were NEVER able to marry white people in the US before inter-racial marriage was made legal
Homosexuals have never been able to marry, and it has yet to be made legal.

Where is the difference that affects the slippery slope?

There have been very few instances where Africans were able to marry Europeans. The only case I know of is the Moors during and after their invasion of Spain.

[steponhens]

Originally posted by: TheBaron

I wasnt talking about the constitutionality or the morality of the Edmunds-Tucker act of 1876 (and Reynolds versus the United States). I was just saying that the argument that making homosexual behavior (most specifically marriage) legal would not disable our ability to control incest or beatiality.

I understand what you are talking about, and I am against everything you have talked about (incest, beatiality, pologamy) but I don't see this as being different. If there is a group that wants to have something it does not mean they must get it. If a group of people want to marry their family members why can't they do it? It wouldn't inflict on my rights, so I shouldn't try to keep them from their pursuit of happiness. That group of indviduals right now is also being discriminated against.

[Max Power]

Here is some interesting stuff.

It's worth a look for some of the changes to marriage during the last few centuries. But here is the part I was looking for.

Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.

There is not any record of interracial marriages being illegal in New York and many of the other northern states. Also checked here for verification.

Laws barring intermarriage between persons of color and whites existed in forty of the fifty states until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these laws were unconstitutional.

[TheBaron]

If we are only looking at the argument "all people in the United States have the right to be married because all Americans have the right to pursue happiness", then everyone in America would be guaranteed the right to polygamy and other things. Philosophically speaking, the Mormons are facing descrimination in two ways I) they are unable to practice their religious beliefs and II) they are unable to pursue happiness in their own way. This argument alone is conducive to a slippery slope argument philosophically but the chances of the United States responding to homosexual marriage by allowing people to marry dogs, chickens and corpses is ridiculous.

There are other parts of the constitution that protect homosexuals, though.The fourteenth amendment grants all citizens equality in the eyes of the law.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

This has been interpretted as "everyone has the right to free speech and no one can have that right abridged unless they did something illegal and have been tried in a court. "

But, there are other civil rights that are importantly protected such as the right of someone to visit their life-partner in the hospital, the right to control through marriage inheritance, and every right that straight people get because they are married. Married people get benefits in the realm of insurance, higher education, etc.

These rights protect homosexual individuals but not those that love animals.

Ultimately I think that homosexual marriage will be legalized like inter-racial marriage, but it will not happen until the majority of Americans accepts the idea (much in the same way eventually Americans accepted inter-racial marriage.)

Getting back to the original argument- the only thing that prevents polygamy is social opinion. Right now homosexual marriage is becoming more and more accepted while polygamy and beatiality still horrify the majority of Americans. It is that public opinion that holds back the flood gates. Eventually people will realize that sexual-orientation is a minor detail and that love and loyalty is more important than social tradition, but until then we need to make sure that we give all people the rights guaranteed them by the constitution- most importantly the right to visit a life-partner in the hospital, etc. Thats where Civil unions come up- its a way of giving homosexual individuals the rights of married people without allowing actual marriage.

BTW thanks for debating with me. Its been fun

[TheBaron]

Good research, Max but I still dont understand how inter-racial marriage is different than same-sex marriages.

How specifically is the legalization of homosexuality different than the legalization of inter-racial marriages? There are obvious differences (race vs. sexual orientation) but how will homosexual marriage cause "a slippery slope" while inter-racial marriage never did?

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: TheBaron
Good research, Max but I still dont understand how inter-racial marriage is different than same-sex marriages.

How specifically is the legalization of homosexuality different than the legalization of inter-racial marriages? There are obvious differences (race vs. sexual orientation) but how will homosexual marriage cause "a slippery slope" while inter-racial marriage never did?

Because interracial marriages have always had legal standing in this country (at least in a minority of states). Therefore it was just something that wasn't done rather than being a truly groundbreaking act. In fact, most states had to have a law that prohibited someone from going to another state if the main purpose of the trip was marriage since the marriages had to be recognized once the couple returned to their home state. So this was something that was happening in all areas of the country to some extent.

Homosexual marriages are a completely different situation. They have never been legal in any part of the US. Ever. That is why it is a fundamental change in the marriage laws and why the slippery slope would have to be navigated. The interracial marriage change was just a matter of erasing a law that could be (and was) circumvented by several hundred couples a year.

[TheBaron]

Well, Im falling asleep here, Max so we are going to have to agree to disagree here

Ill leave it at this,

do you really think that the legalization of homosexual marriage will directly lead to other "variants" becoming legal? I dont see polygamy, beastiality or incest coming down the line anytime so I don't see where we are going to "slip" if we legalize marriage. Where will we slip slide away to?

[twelli]

This thread has been really deep. [img]i/expressions/light.gif[/img]
I admire all of you for being able to discuss legal and social matters with such patience and passion.
Didn't expect this in a sports forum.

I think it is just a matter of time until homo marriages are as normal and accepted as interracial marriages.
There are already much more important issue coming up on the horizon. I think the cloning of humans will be the next ultimate test for social values and legal reforms.

What if a cloned human grows up and wants to marry his own "gen donor"? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

IMO a general reform of the marriage concept is needed not only in the US but in most other civilized countries of the world as well. If half of the people getting married filing for divorce later on there is something wrong. Maybe there should be a clearer distinction between the traditional marriage (the church way) and a modern partnership (the legal way). Modern partnerships could be legally binding agreements between two consenting adults (regardless of sex, race, religion, etc.) that give certain rights and responsibilities and could be fixed to a certain period of time. After expiration, the partners could opt to continue or terminate their agreement. In this way, all the moral issues could be kept out and the focus could be solely on how two people that care for each other can benefit from legal agreement.

[Evilmav2]

I still dont understand how inter-racial marriage is different than same-sex marriages.

According to Websters Third International New Dictionary, marriage is, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife".

An inter-racial marriage is something that can exist without rewriting society's definition of the institution of "marriage". A same-sex marriage is something that can only exist if society's classic and legal understanding of what a marriage is undergoes a fundamental change.

I have zero problems with same-sex couples being afforded the same protections and privileges that a married man and woman are entitled to, but I worry that changing the fundamental nature of what we understand "marriage" to be will cheapen that said hallowed institution, and dreadfully dilute it's historic role as a backbone of human society.

Once the legal definition of marriage is changed to include same-sex couples, what legal precedents or arguments will stand a chance of preventing multiple partner "marriages", same-bloodline "marriages" or cow/chicken/goat to human "marriages"?

Again, I am completely in favor of affording the same rights to same-sex couples that a married man/woman partnership currently enjoys, but that said, I would prefer it if we would be responsible enough to call a cow a cow, and a chicken a chicken. If marriages and civil unions hold the same legal protections, then I see no reason to dilute the institution of marriage through a reckless and intellectually disingenuous spirit of inclusion- just label these relationships as what they are: (forgive the use of this historically awful phrase) seperate, and if general society wills it, wholly equal.

Man-Woman partnership: Marriage
Man-Man, Woman-Woman partnership: Civil Union
Man-Goat partnership: Civil Bestial Union
Woman-Cat partnership: 70% of Single Women Union (just kidding, please don't kill me for that one folks[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img])

Marriage is a timelessly ancient, fundamentally important, and singularly unique institution, and while I think society would be best served by fully extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples, I firmly think we should leave the definitions and traditions of the male-female marriage well alone...

[sturm und drang]

Max Power wrote:

Because it is a slippery slope. If you allow a variant union then it establishes precedent for ANOTHER variant union..."

The "slippery slope" argument is totally ludicrous. What do you really think will come from allowing two consenting, of-age adults who love each other to marry?

If you are honestly going to keep referencing this slippery slope as a reason for precluding two adults from marrying, then I ask you this: if we add a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that prohibits these two adults from marrying, what's next? An American can't marry a foreigner? Inter-racial couples can't marry? How about different socio-economic groups? Or, better yet, different religions?

Slippery slopes, you see, work both ways.

If you can say that we should ban homosexual civil unions or marriages because of the ramifications it will have down the road, I will say it's far more dangerous to set a precendent of CONSTITUTIONALLY BANNING something like this -- simply because it offends the religious-based morality of some. What could the ramifications of that be down the road?

Let's call a spade a spade here. The reason people want to constitutionally ban homosexuals from marrying isn't because they think people are going to start marrying 12 year olds or barnyard animals. It's because homosexuality is morally repugnant to people, and contradicts their religious notions of what is wrong and what is right. They think homosexuals are sinners: living in sin, loving in sin, luxuriating in sin. And that offends them. They hate it. It makes them sick. Marriage is a holy sacrament, they think, that should not be bestowed upon such blatant and unrepentent sinners.

That's the issue. Let's not try to call it anything else but.

[Max Power]

Actually I am FOR homosexuals being allowed to have a civil union and getting the same "rights" as married folks. I would prefer them to use a different NAME for it since marriage has a different meaning. And I am thoroughly AGAINST the constitutional amendment - I believe in state's rights.

But we have to recognize the fact that allowing homosexual unions would set a precendent. You guys are saying things like "What do you really think will come from allowing two consenting, of-age adults who love each other to marry?". Change that sentence to "What do you really think will come from allowing THREE consenting, of-age adults who love each other to marry?" Why is this not valid? Is love restricted to just two people? Maybe the people involved are genetically inclined to want to be in a multiple partner marriage?

Then try "What do you really think will come from allowing two consenting, of-age adults who love each other to marry?" and not apply it to a father/daughter relationship or a father/son relationship. Why allow one kind of union and not another? If both are consenting, of-age adults then there shouldn't be a problem, right?

[sturm und drang]

But see, that's the slippery slope argument again. All I'm saying is that if you're going to keep leaning on that, then it's equally logical to question what the slippery slope ramifications of the precendent of a Constitutional amendment that prohibits certain people from marrying would be.

If two consenting, of-age and in-love same-sex adults are banned from the institution of marriage, who's next? Two people of different races? Religions? Nationalities?

I think the slippery slope argument is really a camouflage for the real issue here. The real issue is that some people have serious moral reservations (usually rooted in religion) about homosexuality, and do not think that these sinners should be allowed to participate in a sacrament such as marriage. That's like saying the reason people are really opposed to marijuana smoking is that it will lead to heroin use - when the real reason is that they think pot smoking is wrong and harmful for everyone involved.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
But see, that's the slippery slope argument again. All I'm saying is that if you're going to keep leaning on that, then it's equally logical to question what the slippery slope ramifications of the precendent of a Constitutional amendment that prohibits certain people from marrying would be.

I totally agree. In addition I support states rights. If the majority of people in a state want homosexual unions then it is best for them. Of course I would support other states from deciding against those unions and passing laws that those unions are not valid in their states.

I think the slippery slope argument is really a camouflage for the real issue here. The real issue is that some people have serious moral reservations (usually rooted in religion) about homosexuality, and do not think that these sinners should be allowed to participate in a sacrament such as marriage. That's like saying the reason people are really opposed to marijuana smoking is that it will lead to heroin use - when the real reason is that they think pot smoking is wrong and harmful for everyone involved.

Hey now. I supported the rights of homosexuals in the other thread and still do so. It was kg who brought up the slippery slope in the other thread and he is absolutely right.

[LRB]

If two consenting, of-age and in-love same-sex adults are banned from the institution of marriage, who's next? Two people of different races? Religions? Nationalities?

Sturm, 1st of all an amendment would only preserve the status quo in regards to marriage as has been in place for many years. The real change would be taking away the power of the states to make the decision to change marriage to allow same sex unions to be included in it. As far as the slippery slope argument, it really doesn't apply to the amendment. If say marriage between different races or religions or nationalites was to be banned in the same way as same sex marriage, then it would take another amendment to accomplish this. That's exactly what it would take presently. What I'm trying to say is that the legal precedent which could realistically be used the the judicial branch of government to make rulings would be extremely narrow. Judges would be no more closer to making the leap to banning the types of marriages that you have cited they they presently are.

However, if marriages are allowed for same sex couples as part of an argument that it would be discrimination not to, then a legal precedent would be set which judges could apply to allow such things as 3 way marriages, marriages between parent and child, etc. This is the slippery slope argument. I do think that it has some merit in that it does need to be considered why this would not apply at the very least.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The reason people want to constitutionally ban homosexuals from marrying isn't because they think people are going to start marrying 12 year olds or barnyard animals. It's because homosexuality is morally repugnant to people, and contradicts their religious notions of what is wrong and what is right. They think homosexuals are sinners: living in sin, loving in sin, luxuriating in sin. And that offends them. They hate it. It makes them sick. Marriage is a holy sacrament, they think, that should not be bestowed upon such blatant and unrepentent sinners.

That's the issue. Let's not try to call it anything else but.

This is a highly prejudical statement IMO. While I certainly believe that there are those in favor of not changing the legal definition of marriage to include same sex union who do so for the reasons that you have expressed, not all people do so for those reasons. I certainly don't for sure and I've know others who don't. Yes, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. I also believe drinking alchol to be a sin. I have friend and family members who do both, and I care for them very much. I certainly don't hate them or want to punish them. I'm hardly free of what I would consider sin as well. But I also greatly respect the institution of marriage that exists in our society. I do believe that changing it's fundamental definition would result in eventual damage to that institution. I can certainly see why someone would not feel that way, but just because someone opposes same sex marriage doesn't mean that they hate homosexuals and want to punish them.

[sike]

Heck, in France you can marry the dead

please dont bring the French into this [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you".Matthew 5:10-12

this passage is taken out of context...it is about suffering for Christ...suffering persecution because of your relationship/love/commitment to him...not just for suffering in general or for being persecuted for something becuase of sexual preference....this passage is specific to suffering for faith, not suffering in general.
as far as the idea of those who oppose homosexual marriage do so based only religious conviction, that is wrong. This is an issue for anyone concernd with ethics. It is true that many derive their moral and ethical standards from a religious conviction, but to say that a religious person cannot think outside of his/her personal religious convictions is both offensive and unfounded.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: sike

this passage is taken out of context...it is about suffering for Christ...suffering persecution because of your relationship/love/commitment to him...not just for suffering in general or for being persecuted for something becuase of sexual preference....this passage is specific to suffering for faith, not suffering in general.

I've read several interpretations and explanations of the King James tranlsation of the Beatitudes, and I understood when I included that scripture that this was not written as a defense of (or consolation to) those who are persecuted because of their sexual preference.

And yet...

The scripture evokes (poetically) two ideas for me, assuming a religious (NOT legal) perspective of the issue.

First, reading with emphasis "..they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake..."--

the idea that comes to mind is that same-sex partners seeking the blessing of the Church on their relationships are in many cases being rejected and denied recognition (i.e., persecution) because of someone else's abstract notion of what a righteous life is, and because of someone else's attempt to impose this notion on others. Same-sex partners are thus suffering persecution "..for righteousness' sake...". They, REAL, living, flesh-and-blood beings, are being persecuted not for their own faith, but because of the attempts by other to impose a lifeless abstraction --a specific interpreation of 'righteousness'--on them. And this preference for preserving an abstraction over the rights, interests and well-being of living human beings utterly astounds me. Again, I understand that this is not the meaning of the original text, but it comes very close (coincidentally or poetically) to describing the situation that same-sex partners face.

Second, however, and perhaps more debateable as to how applicable the scripture is--when same-sex parterns seek to affirm their love for one another within their faith, and live in a committed, loving, faithful relationship, loving and raising their children in every sense of the term 'family', this seems to me to be very close to living what I understand Jesus's teachings to be. When they are denied acknowledgment of their commitment to live in a loving, commited, faithful realtionship, they are persecuted for attempting to live very much within Jesus's teachings.

Neither of these points is essential, of course. There need be no obligatory religious endorsement of same-sex marriages. Individual faiths, indeed individual congregations, can and should be able to determine this for themselves.

But this should also be separate from the government's obligation to acknowledge, guarantee and protect equal civil rights and to confer equal legal rights and protections to same-sex partners. And this is NOT trivial, or poetic , or inessential.

[sike]

Kiki,
I understand your poetic interp of the verse and would agree that same sex partners, or anyone for that matter, can hold to many of the teachings of Christ/the Bible, and While I may not be able to clear up what it "evokes" to you, suffering persecution for faith in Christ is the sole meaning (literally) of the text. Christ is saying to his followers, you will be blessed for sticking with me even when others come against you because of ME. To my knowldge, this has little to do with the thread's issue.
At the same time I must say that the Church has missed the mark in their responce to the homosexual community, instead of reacting with fear, disgust, or sometimes even hate, they (we) must reach out with the love of Christ...His love is the only valid interpretation!
I obviously agree that the State and Church have different responcibilities to the homosexual community....the State only has to be just/fair to them, the Church must love them with the love of Christ!

[madape]

Thus far in this thread, people have used both the King James Bible and Websters Dictionary as references on what should be law in this country. What's next, Mad Magazine? There is only one ultimate source of law in this country - the US Constitution. It superscedes the Bible, and yes... even Webster's Dictaionary.

As it stands now, any law that prohibits gays from marrying would be judged unconstitutional. If the chain of events were permitted to transpire, the Constitution would likely uphold the right of Massachusetts and other states to give marrying rights to gay couples. In order to take that right away from gays, the Constitution must be changed.

It is my opinion that those in favor of this ammendment put the sovereignty of the US Constitution somewhere beneath that of the Bible, and even certain dictionaries. It is my opinion that neither should be referenced when rationalizing federal law. This is a free country in which citizens are not legally bound to follow religious doctrines, and certainly bound to follow for-profit publications like dictionaries and almanacs. We answer to one document and one document alone... the Constitution.

The Constitution protects the rights of every citizen, even those persecuted by the religious majority. The idea of those in power changing it so that they can legally enforce religious persecution is blasphemous.

[sike]

Originally posted by: madape
Thus far in this thread, people have used both the King James Bible and Websters Dictionary as references on what should be law in this country. What's next, Mad Magazine? There is only one ultimate source of law in this country - the US Constitution. It superscedes the Bible, and yes... even Webster's Dictaionary.

As it stands now, any law that prohibits gays from marrying would be judged unconstitutional. If the chain of events were permitted to transpire, the Constitution would likely uphold the right of Massachusetts and other states to give marrying rights to gay couples. In order to take that right away from gays, the Constitution must be changed.

It is my opinion that those in favor of this ammendment put the sovereignty of the US Constitution somewhere beneath that of the Bible, and even certain dictionaries. It is my opinion that neither should be referenced when rationalizing federal law. This is a free country in which citizens are not legally bound to follow religious doctrines, and certainly bound to follow for-profit publications like dictionaries and almanacs. We answer to one document and one document alone... the Constitution.

The Constitution protects the rights of every citizen, even those persecuted by the religious majority. The idea of those in power changing it so that they can legally enforce religious persecution is blasphemous.

a good, often overlooked, and obvious point. This is not a Christian/Hindu/Jewish/etc. nation.....and Roger Williams would have had it no other way! But I dont think anyone here has been using any Holy book to justify their ethical arguments...if so, I missed it...if so, please quote them....

Good Question: does the Constitution have a clearly difined understanding of marriage?

[LRB]

MadApe the constitution does not address marriage directly. I searched throughout it and the amendments without finding any reference to marriage. Now surely there are numerous items in the constitution which indirectly apply to the topic being discussed here. However those items are open at least somewhat to interpretation. Of course the constitution was only meant to be a framework for our government, and was never meant to be a exacting detail document.

Now I don't know who you are referring specifically to as using quotes from the Bible as their basis of their argument on opposing same sex marriage, but I have not see it here in this thread. Websters still is a valid reference, because to understand the constitution and the rest of our laws we need to understand the language that they are written in. A dictionary gives us the way to precisely and concisely provide definitions to key words. But all it is used for is to provide definiton for words. Certainly the dictionary is not our laws, but it does help us understand our laws.

[Evilmav2]

Thus far in this thread, people have used both the King James Bible and Websters Dictionary as references on what should be law in this country. What's next, Mad Magazine? There is only one ultimate source of law in this country - the US Constitution. It superscedes the Bible, and yes... even Webster's Dictaionary.

As it stands now, any law that prohibits gays from marrying would be judged unconstitutional.

-Wrong; There is nothing unconstitutional about "any law" prohibiting gays from marrying. That would only, possibly be the case for a federal law affecting same-sex relations.

[/b]If the chain of events were permitted to transpire, the Constitution would likely uphold the right of Massachusetts and other states to give marrying rights to gay couples.[/b]

-Right; but only as long as a court was overturning a federal law restricting or banning gay marriages, not a state law doing the same. There is no inherent unconstitutionality in the restriction or banning of same-sex marriages by individual states.

The US constitution does not make any specific reference to the institution of "marriage". Unless the issue arises in a federal territory (as per article IV, section 3), the federal government has no jurisdiction over this issue. That is why opponents of same-sex marriage desire a constitutional amendment, and are relatively unsure and uneasy about how the supreme court might rule in any challenge to the congressional Defense of Marriage act.

Thus, generally on a state by state basis, this issue is going to be defined by individual state law- law that will accurately reflect the kind of popular, societal standards that definitions in dictionaries like Webster's also reflect.

Constitutionally speaking, barring a constitutional amendment, or some revanchanist federal courtroom trying to make some bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment (something sure to be overturned), the 10th amendment will ultimately hold sway in this matter:

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

-Incidentally, please feel free to correct me if any of y'all resident D-M lawyers think I am wrong about this.

[FishForLunch]

Civil Unions - Marriage, both seem to have the same legal rights. So I dont get why people are fighting over labels.

[MavKikiNYC]

DEJA VU
By CYNTHIA CROSSEN

Couples in the U.S. Used to Marry Early, Often and Informally

In a Connecticut village in the 17th century, an unmarried couple moved in together. One day, while out for a stroll, they ran into the local magistrate.

"John Rogers," the magistrate said, "do you persist in calling this woman your wife?"

"Yes, I do."

"And Mary, do you really wish this old man to be your husband?"

"Indeed I do."

"Then by the laws of God and this commonwealth, I pronounce you man and wife..."

Although probably apocryphal, this story reflects the state of marriage in early America: no license, witness, ceremony, often not even a magistrate. Some couples wanted a blessing from church or state, but common-law marriages, men and women behaving as spouses without a formal contract, were both legal and respectable. An 1843 Indiana marriage law stated, "No particular form of ceremony shall be necessary, except that the parties shall declare ... that they take each other as husband and wife."

Early American settlers adapted traditions imported from England to life on the wide-open plains. A man and woman may have committed themselves to lifelong devotion months, even years, before a circuit judge or preacher happened along. Many couples didn't wait. In the early Chesapeake region, roughly a third of brides were pregnant.

Females were marriageable at the age of 12, males at 15. But in Hempstead Harbor, N.Y., in 1838, Edward Tappan, 15 years old, married Harriet Allen, who had just celebrated her 11th birthday. In Green Hollow, Maine, in 1828, a Mr. Williams, age 87, wed Polly Candle, 14.

After marrying, most couples had a powerful incentive to sustain their connubial enterprise: The labor of both was crucial to their survival. Further cementing the bond, by law a wife's personal property belonged to her husband; if she left him, she took nothing. Even so, some early settlers, both women and men, sought divorces. But death, not strife, ended most marriages. In the 17th century, one of the spouses, usually the woman, was likely to be dead in seven years.

By the 19th century, state legislators were realizing that people who married themselves could -- and would -- also divorce themselves, leaving a trail of destitution. Lawmakers passed a hodgepodge of bills setting the terms of the marriage contract. In most states, common-law marriage was gradually abolished. Before Americans could marry, they had to ask the government's permission.

Thirty states prohibited people with physical or mental disabilities -- epileptics or the "feeble-minded, idiotic, imbecilic or insane" -- from marrying. (In many states, women over 45 were exempted from this rule.) Four states disqualified paupers or inmates in public institutions for the indigent. Washington and North Dakota didn't issue marriage licenses to people suffering from advanced tuberculosis.

Most states banned interracial marriage; white citizens of Florida could not marry anyone of "one-eighth or more Negro blood." California's white residents couldn't legally marry "a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race." Nevada's racial restrictions were all-inclusive -- a white man or woman could not marry "a person of the black, brown, yellow or red races." In Mississippi, the penalty for interracial marriage was life in prison.

Slaves could not legally marry. How, legislators argued, could property itself enter into a contract? Nonetheless, slaves got married, "till death or distance do you part," as their preachers sometimes said. Mormon polygamy, deemed "inhumane," was finally banned by the Supreme Court in 1879.

If marriage law became a thicket of red tape, divorce was a jungle. In South Carolina, divorce was prohibited for any reason. But in most states, a man or woman could petition the legislature for divorce -- a long, expensive and often futile exercise. Grounds for divorce were narrow and literal: adultery, drunkenness, desertion. Some states didn't allow the divorced, especially the "guilty" ones, to remarry while their former spouses were alive.

State divorce laws were so different -- and so often contested -- that an exasperated U.S. Supreme Court justice wrote, "If there is one thing the people are entitled to expect from their lawmakers, it's rules that will enable them to tell whether they are married, and if so, to whom."

Not surprisingly, couples often fled to states with the most lenient divorce rules. In the 19th century, Indiana was a favorite. Since then, except for a few brief periods in the 20th century, America's divorce rate has steadily marched upward. In 1880, one in 21 marriages ended in divorce; by 1916, one of every nine couples divorced.

Today, a state's marriage law contains dozens of technicalities defining who may and may not marry. In Arizona, for example, first cousins can't marry unless both are at least 65 years old. If one is under 65, however, they may marry "upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce."

Write to Cynthia Crossen at cynthia.crossen@wsj.com

Updated February 25, 2004

[Usually Lurkin]

married at 11 years old! some laws, I think are good.

Does anyone know how closely the increase in marriage constraints matched a differential in benefits/punishments doled out to married and unmarried people?

[Max Power]

San Francisco officials preside at marriage of lesbian couple
By Lisa Leff, Associated Press, 2/12/2004

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.

The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.

The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were married just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...esbian_couple/

[MavKikiNYC]

Gay-Marriage Fight Finds Ambivalence From Evangelicals
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, NYTimes

Published: February 28, 2004


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., Feb. 27 — Prominent evangelical Christians in Washington have been warning the Bush administration for months that conservative Christians may not have enough motivation to vote this November if the president failed to vigorously support their effort to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

But down in the pews of Western Michigan, a major center of evangelical Protestantism, not everyone is sure that the proposed amendment matters so much.

"For me personally, even though I have a strong religious belief, who am I to say?" said Grant Reed, a police officer, a Republican and a member of the nondenominational evangelical Ada Bible Church in Ada, a suburb of Grand Rapids. "I know my wife would say, `a marriage is between a man and a woman, and sin is sin,' " Mr. Reed said, but he has a good friend from college who is gay.

"I think we have bigger things to worry about than whether two men or two women want to get married," he said.

Now that the president has joined the calls for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, the response from conservative Christian voters like Mr. Reed is a subject of keen interest in Washington. Some conservative strategists close to the White House have warned that pushing for the amendment could turn off some moderate swing voters who might consider it bigoted or intolerant.

But Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, has made increasing Christian conservative turnout a top priority this election, saying that he believes the president nearly lost the election in 2000 because about four million conservative Christian voters failed to go to the polls.

Grand Rapids, the center of what amounts to a small Northern Bible Belt, is the kind of place where evangelical turnout might make a difference — the conservative counterweight in a perennial swing state that Al Gore carried by fewer than 218,000 votes four years ago. Michigan has 17 electoral votes, making it the eighth largest trove of electoral votes in the nation.

Conversations with dozens of evangelical voters and a half a dozen pastors in Western Michigan, however, suggest that the political payoff may not be so clear. Almost all who identified themselves as conservative Christians immediately objected to gay marriage on biblical grounds. But most said they were already deeply committed to Mr. Bush's re-election. Several people said their admiration for Mr. Bush had grown since the last election, mainly because they had learned more about his personal faith as a born-again Christian. Some pastors said they had been preparing since 2000 to rally their parishioners to get out the vote in support of Mr. Bush, regardless of his stance on the amendment.

More striking was the minority of evangelical churchgoers and even pastors who expressed ambivalence about the amendment. Some mentioned friends who are gay. The Rev. Henry Schenkel, the 30-year-old founder of the Monroe Mall Ministry who was leading a church group to the opening of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" on Wednesday night, acknowledged some hesitation on the issue, despite what he said was the Bible's clarity on the question.

Mr. Schenkel said the issue was unlikely to determine his feelings about Mr. Bush. "This is one issue, and there are 30 other issues I will consider," he said.

Jan Herreman, who was attending the film with her nondenominational evangelical church, called Mr. Bush's support for the amendment "awesome." "I don't want my grandchildren growing up thinking that two men or two women is a normal marriage," she said.

But her husband, James, another church member, disagreed. "I am not sure that the Constitution needs an amendment for marriage," he said.

Their responses suggested that as large, evangelical churches have flourished in places far from the Bible Belt, the viewpoints in the pews have become more diverse, even on the issue of gay rights. In a survey of 4,000 voters by the University of Akron around the time of the last election evangelical Christians were closely divided over whether gays should have the same rights as other Americans.

"Evangelicals don't march in lock step," said Corwin E. Smidt, a professor of political science at Calvin College here who helped conduct the Akron study.

Of course, Grand Rapids is a long way from the traditional Bible Belt in the South. Conservative Dutch Calvinists settled the region in the mid-19th century and founded the evangelical Christian Reform Church here. The evangelical culture they imparted always placed a greater emphasis on education than similar evangelical denominations like the Southern Baptists, said James Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in Greenville, S.C. "I think in the Christian Reform Church you are going to find more people who are a little quieter on these issues," he said in a telephone interview, noting that many Baptist congregations near his home in Greenville were praying for passage of the amendment.

But the churches of Grand Rapids are still not all that different from evangelical congregations elsewhere, Mr. Guth said. "There are more evangelicals in the South, but if you look at the evangelical Protestants around the country they look pretty much alike."

Several Christian conservatives here said they identified closely with their Southern counterparts in what they saw as a common battle to save the Christian foundation. David Huizenga, pastor of the Sunshine Community Church, the largest Christian Reform Church in the area with about 2,000 members, said he kept abreast of the issue with publications and e-mail messages from Christian conservative groups like the American Family Association. "If we allow this, then marriage is in danger in our country," he said. "I think marriage would be a joke in this country. It would further the breakdown of our society and our schools."

But Mr. Huizenga said he had already planned to do everything he could to remind his congregation to vote this fall. Two weeks before the 2000 election, he said, he began gathering 50 to 100 parishioners each week for a meeting to pray about political issues. The group has continued for four years. He and others from his congregation have recently joined a larger inter-denominational citywide prayer group as well.

"We communicate to the rest of the congregation how God leads us in prayer," Mr. Huizenga said. "This week we will certainly be praying on the marriage issue and the amendment that he is calling for," he said.

If Mr. Bush had not taken a stand on same-sex marriage, it would have made little difference to the church's effort to get out the vote, Mr. Huizenga said.

At a school trip to an ice skating rink in downtown Grand Rapids, three mothers said they, too, were cheering for the amendment. "Gay marriage goes against God's plan for a man and a woman to join together," said Jan Scott, a mother of six and a member of the Revenna Baptist Church. "Homosexuals are disillusioned by lies from Satan."

Still, Ms. Scott said, she was fully committed to voting for Mr. Bush even if he remained silent on the subject. "I would have been disappointed, but I still would have supported him," she said, adding, "I know what Bush is like behind the scenes, things that don't get in the press, because I read Christian publications." She recounted an episode she had read about the president touching the injured arm and kissing the forehead of an amputee returning Iraq. "That is the kind of love that comes from God."

But other strictly conservative, evangelicals expressed doubts about treating sexual behavior as a political issue. "Though the church, and though I, have firm convictions about sexuality, our ministry is primarily about people's spiritual life and not about pushing a political agenda," said Jeff Manion, pastor of Ada Bible Church, with about 3,000 members.

Many conservative churchgoers, including Mr. Smidt of Calvin College, said they felt clear in their opposition to gay marriage but divided on the subject of a constitutional amendment. "I don't like to see it used as a political hammer," he said. "Pushing for an amendment doesn't really energize my support." He added, "It may be that when you add up the votes on this issue, it is not going to add as much as it takes away."

[Mavdog]

This may be an issue that is talked alot but nothing is done- an Amendment is a tough process. The candidates throw their lot with the status quo, not taking any risk with the voters. The politicos really don't need to act until the court process is done.

What would be very, very interesting is if a candidate were to take on the right of ALL adults to marry an adult of their mutual choice. The G/L communities would turn out close to 100%, other sympathetic would be a high turnout. That's a solid voter base, it's not totally left but includes some of the right.
There's a reason Bush tried to not push this issue.

[dude1394]

Bush in general (despite all of the media spinning) does not believe in pushing divisive cultural issues. For example his strategy on stem-cells. However although he is a politician I do believe that he has deep-held beliefs.

The current circus involving gay-marriage needs to be challenged. Having 4 boston judges and 1 mayor in san francision determine policy for the nation is not acceptable. We all know what the next step is and that is to declare someone marriage license from san francisco to be valid everywhere. In fact that is the reason for the pre-emptive ruling by social security to avoid that. Of course that sets up the legal-case immediately. And it has to go to the supreme court because it's a federal practice.

[thebac]

A few points:

Unless (or until?) the DOMA is declared unconstitutional, other states will NOT have to recognize gay marriages in SF or MA, that act already took care of that. The amendment is about prohibiting gay marriages everywhere, not about some states having to recognize gay marriages if they don't want to.

Second, the reason why gay people prefer a marriage to a civil union (from what I understand) is that the laws already on the books often make references to married people that would NOT apply to civil unions unless all those laws are changed (a logistical impossibility).

Third, let's be honest here: Opponents of gay marriage are not against gay marriage because they're afraid that incestous marriages and the like are next. They're against gay marriage because they find gay people repulsive. In addition, they're not looking for proof that homosexuality is genetic. For them, no amount of scientific proof will be enough to convince them of it. Science can never be absolute, and they can find their absolutes in the Bible.

Fourth, I wanted to note the parallel structure of the argument that gay people can already get married--to those of the opposite sex. That happens to be a very similar argument to those made as late as 40some years ago against interracial marriage--that everyone can get married, as long as it's a person of the same race.


As an aside, while I'm clearly in favor of allowing gay marriage, I don't think the argument is entirely parallel to that of interracial marriage.

Finally, on a lighter note, some states do have laws against infidelity and adultery on the books (though they're rarely enforced).

[LRB]

Third, let's be honest here: Opponents of gay marriage are not against gay marriage because they're afraid that incestous marriages and the like are next. They're against gay marriage because they find gay people repulsive. In addition, they're not looking for proof that homosexuality is genetic. For them, no amount of scientific proof will be enough to convince them of it. Science can never be absolute, and they can find their absolutes in the Bible.

This may be true for some but certainly not all opponents of gay marriage. I do not feel that this is a fair statement at all. It shows ever much bias and prejudice as the gay and lesbian community claims is directed at them if not more. We're talking about millions of individuals here who hold a fairly wide spectrum of beliefs and values. Just because they agree on one item, opposition of same sex marriage, it is unfair to lump them all together as to the reasons why they agree.

[MavKikiNYC]

Interesting NYTimes article from today, suggesting that some active gay Republican voters are not single-issue voters, rather they exhibit a hyper-rational approach to analyzing the issues.

This piece fleshes out the results of a Pew Survey of voters which found that among supporters of equal-rights for same-sex marriages, only 6% would vote against a candidate who held a different position on the issue than they did.

Contrast this to the views of voters who opposed equal rights for same-sex marriage, where 34% of such voters responded that they would vote against a candidate who held a different position on the issue than they did.

These results frame Bush's recent support for a constitutional amendment on the issue in stark political terms--he has much to lose politically by failing to support such a measure, and virutally nothing to gain by remaining neutral.

IMO, Bush wil eventually be regarded as one of the 5 Greatest American Presidents, by virtue of the events that occurred during his presidency, and by virtue of his heroic response to them. His greatness as a leader, however, will not be because of his positions on social issues, and in particular the equal rights for same-sex marriages.

Bush may ultimately be analogous to Lincoln, who as a leader presided over the Civil War and ended slavery, but who as a person, did not believe in the equality of the races.

Gay and Republican, but Not Necessarily Disloyal to President
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: March 9, 2004


As a lesbian in a long-term relationship, Margaret Leber objects to the idea of amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

But Ms. Leber, a software engineer and a registered Republican in Jeffersonville, Pa., is also a member of the Pink Pistols, an organization of gay and lesbian gun owners, and marriage is not the only issue on her mind.

"Right now, I am leaning toward Bush," Ms. Leber said. "All the Democrats just rolled into Congress to vote for this gun-control bill. Somebody with my values and beliefs can't be a single-issue voter."

President Bush's support for the gay-marriage amendment drew expressions of dismay and betrayal from many of his gay and lesbian supporters, including some of the 12 prominent gay Republicans who met with him in Austin, Tex., shortly after his election as a show of mutual support. But as the debate over same-sex marriage heats up, some gay Republicans say Mr. Bush may still get their vote in November.

One million voters who identified themselves as gay voted for him in the last election, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls. That million represented about 1 percent of the electorate and about 25 percent of the gay vote. With both sides forecasting another election-night photo finish this year, a million votes could determine the victor.

But being a gay Republican has never been simple. Some, including others in the Austin group, said Mr. Bush had not yet lost their votes. In interviews last week several gay Republicans said they resented the assumption that while straight people worry about taxes or national security, gays and lesbians vote according to their sexuality alone. Some played down Mr. Bush's move as a political necessity to appease his base of social conservatives and said it would have little consequence in the end. Others said they were waiting to see whether the president let the subject drop or continued to bring it up.

"There are so many more issues involved," said Jim McFarland of Milwaukee, a member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians and one of the gay Republicans who met with Mr. Bush in Austin. "I think he would handle foreign policy much better, he would handle fiscal policy much better. I certainly don't want that big tax cut reversed that he passed. There are other issues that have a big impact on my life."

Mr. McFarland said the president's endorsement of the amendment had caused him to "re-evaluate how much I would support him," but it had not yet alienated him.

"I don't think that he wanted to do this, and I think that is indicated by the fact that he made baby steps along the way rather than just jump right in," he said.

Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gays in the party, worried last month that the president's backing of an amendment might demoralize or cripple Mr. Guerriero's group. But in an interview on Friday, Mr. Guerriero said the Log Cabin Republicans had received a sudden increase in memberships and financial support.

"What we are doing right now is we are putting all of our resources to fight the constitutional amendment," he said. "Then hopefully the party and the president can focus on who do you want to be the president regarding taxes and who do you want to be commander in chief when it comes to terrorism."

Although Mr. Bush's support for the amendment "seriously jeopardized" the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, Mr. Guerriero said the group had not made a decision. "Our members are intensely conservative,'` he said. "We are not going to let one moment make us run away scared."

Gay Republicans in the administration or close to Mr. Bush said they felt torn between anger at the amendment and loyalty to the president. The Republican Unity Coalition, an alliance of gay and straight Republicans whose gay chairman, Charles Francis, is a friend of Mr. Bush's, said in a statement that "good and decent people can differ on gay marriage." But he called the proposed amendment "a betrayal of conservative principles of federalism and limited government."

Friends of Mr. Francis' described him as anguished by Mr. Bush's stance but reluctant to criticize him. Mr. Francis declined to comment.

Donald A. Capoccia, a New York real estate developer who was one of the biggest gay fund-raisers for the Bush campaign and also part of the Austin group, resigned his appointment to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts in protest. "I am shocked that anyone would be supportive of a president who is endorsing this extreme measure," Mr. Capoccia said.

But of the handful of openly gay and lesbian Bush appointees, so far only Mr. Capoccia has resigned publicly over the issue. Scott Evertz, who was director of the White House office on national AIDS policy and is now a special assistant to the secretary of health and human services, said that despite his open opposition to the amendment he supported the president. "I am still a respected member of this administration from all that I can see," Mr. Evertz said.

But Mr. Evertz said he was enduring some heated criticism from friends, including some straight Republicans. "I had a fight with one last night," he said. "She said, `What are you going to do about this one?' I said, `I can't do anything.' "

Opponents of the amendment have started a letter-writing campaign asking Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and director of vice-presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, to speak out against the amendment. She declined to comment.

Mike Smith, the former executive director of the Colorado gay and lesbian community center, who became friendly with Ms. Cheney in her old job as liaison to gays and lesbians for Coors Brewing, said that in the 2000 race he asked her how she made peace with her father's politics. "She said they have a very close relationship, and that he had come to understand her and to love her partner," Mr. Smith recalled. "She had tried not to involve his political life and her private life, in the same way she felt that her own work life was separate from her private life."

In the last election, Mr. Bush did little to court gay voters. He appeared at Bob Jones University, an evangelical Christian college that teaches that homosexuality is a sin. He refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. And he opposed some legislation intended to protect gays from discrimination. But after he was elected, he appointed a handful of gays to his administration.

Brett Robben, another gay friend of Ms. Cheney's in Denver, who used to work in Washington, said he learned to discount antigay statements from politicians. "Those stands were more for the constituents back home," he said. "It wouldn't be that offensive because it was just, you know, politics."

Ingrid E. Barnes, a lesbian who is associate director of undergraduate admissions at Pace University in New York and a Republican, said she was shaken but not necessarily deterred from voting for Mr. Bush.

"I believe in small government," Ms. Barnes said. "I believe in taxpayers holding on to their money. I believe in individual responsibility."

She added, "I think we need to work against this amendment passing, and I think we have to stand with our president on the national level."

Brian Bennett, an energy and crisis-management consultant in Long Beach, Calif., an anti-abortion gay Republican and another member of the Austin group, compared his position to that of a Republican supporting abortion rights.

"For the first time in my life," Mr. Bennett said, "I truly understand how pro-choice people feel in the Republican Party."

"I am frankly angry and deeply hurt that he did this. I will fight with every fiber in me to see that it is defeated," he said.

But he said he felt he had to separate his opposition from the amendment from his support for Mr. Bush. "I am an American first, I am a gay American second," he said. "I am going to support him on the fight against terrorism, and be against him on this amendment. Am I going to vote for him? Yes, I will, very reluctantly and only because of the courageous and gutsy job he has done fighting terrorism."