Same-Sex Marriage Ban Vote on the Horizon

[Drbio]

It is so refreshing to see Frist act on behalf of the voters desire and not some PAC interest. The vote will probably fail, but this man is doing his job. Representing the will of the people. Good job Sen. Frist.....good job sir.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday he plans a vote in early June on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a move likely to fail but sure to spark a fiery election-year debate.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told CNN he's planning the vote for the week of June 5 because he wants to deal with the issue "as early as possible" before the Senate calendar fills up in a busy election year.

Frist said he doesn't know how many votes the ban will receive, but Republican and Democratic aides privately acknowledged the vote will probably fall far short of the 67-vote supermajority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.

When the Senate last voted on the issue in July 2004, a procedural motion to consider the ban received 48 votes -- well short of the number needed to send it on to the House of Representatives and then to all 50 states for ratification.

A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, charged that Frist is wasting valuable time on the Senate floor in order to rally conservative voters in the midterm elections.

"At a time when we have so many other pressing issues facing the country, I'm not sure where this falls in the list of priorities," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Frist has been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2008, but a poll taken in December showed him trailing several other possible GOP nominees. (Full story)

Republican supporters of the constitutional ban insist they are not motivated by the politics of the issue and are solely focused on keeping the matter on the national agenda, hoping they can get closer to 67 votes over the next few years.

Achieving that goal, however, has been complicated by the fact that six Republicans -- including Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- voted against the ban in 2004.

President Bush has expressed support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

In last month's State of the Union address, he said many Americans are "discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage."

The issue played a prominent role in the 2004 election campaign, with voters in 11 states considering amendments to state constitutions codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. The measures passed in each state.

In 2005, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

[Mavdog]

"At a time when we have so many other pressing issues facing the country, I'm not sure where this falls in the list of priorities," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley

so true, so very true.

ah, so much demogaugery, and so little time.

I wonder what happened to the "state's rights" banner of the conservative wing of which frist is supposedly a member?

[dude1394]

It's because of the lack of protection of states rights unfortunately that this has to be done. A single judge declaring gay marriage legal in Massachusetts could force it down the throats of the rest of the country.

You know this but choose to ignore it.

What problem do you have with democracy anyway?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It's because of the lack of protection of states rights unfortunately that this has to be done. A single judge declaring gay marriage legal in Massachusetts could force it down the throats of the rest of the country.

You know this but choose to ignore it.

What problem do you have with democracy anyway?

no, that's inaccurate. the courts are ruling on the laws, if those laws are not constitutional the state legislatures can pass new laws that are constitutional.

it sure is wonderful that with the ongoing issues that our country faces the supposed "protection" of marriage is getting frist's complete attention. why not those things he knows well, such as focusing his time on ethics rules and stock holdings? that's something he has a lot of experience with.

maybe he won't stop protecting us from same sex marriages, he'll go full board and outlaw divorce. that's more a threat to marriage than any same sex couples could possibly be.

democracy is great, yet I'm not sure that this is within the definition of democracy. democracy would be for each state to hold a vote to decide.

there can also be societal errors with democracy. in the early years of our country a democratic vote would have maintained slavery, and if we allowed a democratioc vote on the issue of women's suffrage it may have been voted down.

that the voters pass a law does not in itself make that law correct or just.

[Drbio]

that the voters pass a law does not in itself make that law correct or just.

So you know what is best for the country or state over the will of the people? Seems like the will of the people would be more correct or just than the will of mavdog.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

So you know what is best for the country or state over the will of the people? Seems like the will of the people would be more correct or just than the will of mavdog.

gee, do you agree or disagree with what was said? it seems that in your zeal to find some fault you missed the entire point. it has nothing to do with what I feel is "best". "best" isn't the point of what was said.

try again....or not.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

gee, do you agree or disagree with what was said? it seems that in your zeal to find some fault you missed the entire point. it has nothing to do with what I feel is "best". "best" isn't the point of what was said.

try again....or not.

You really are obtuse. You tried to inject your belief that just because a law is made per the voters that it isn't just or correct. Let's explore that a second. You are injecting your opinion that a law banning homosexual marriage is unjust and not correct. Horsepoo. The will of the people is that a law should exist banning homosexual marriage. That you do not agree is unimportant. If you disagree with it take it up with your representatives and work to change the will of the people..

It seems that you've been exposed. Shocker. I understood exactly your weak ass point. You think that homosexual marriage should not be banned and it is your opinion that the law is unjust. Of course that is wrong. The will of the people is greater than the will of mavdog. Fortunately that is what occurred here.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Drbio

So you know what is best for the country or state over the will of the people? Seems like the will of the people would be more correct or just than the will of mavdog.

A democracy is not a simple "hands for, hands against" system. A primary function of a democracy is to protect the rights of the minority.

The fact that there are more women then men in this country doesn't mean that if a majority of the country voted the affirmative on the question "Should all assets of men be confiscated and redistributed to women?" that enacting the "will of the people" in this case would be furthering American democracy.

In the case of case of rights of gays to be married, the issue is more muddied, but to pretend that "if 51% of the country is against gay marriage then, by gum, democracy demands that gay marriage should be illegal" is clearly overly simplistic.

<<edit: I see that this argument was already made (although not addressed) my bad.>>

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

A democracy is not a simple "hands for, hands against" system. A primary function of a democracy is to protect the rights of the minority.

The fact that there are more women then men in this country doesn't mean that if a majority of the country voted the affirmative on the question "Should all assets of men be confiscated and redistributed to women?" that enacting the "will of the people" in this case would be furthering American democracy.

In the case of case of rights of gays to be married, the issue is more muddied, but to pretend that "if 51% of the country is against gay marriage then, by gum, democracy demands that gay marriage should be illegal" is clearly overly simplistic.

<<edit: I see that this argument was already made (although not addressed) my bad.>>

well said.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, that's inaccurate. the courts are ruling on the laws, if those laws are not constitutional the state legislatures can pass new laws that are constitutional.

EHHHH!! Wrong answer and you know it. All that a federal court has to do is decide that gay-marriage is constitutional in one state and other states are obligated to honor that ruling. I forget the statute, but it has something to do with interstate commerce I believe.

The vast majority of states already have laws against gay-marriage, the reason for the constitutional amendment is to circumvent the very scenario I just proscribed.

it sure is wonderful that with the ongoing issues that our country faces the supposed "protection" of marriage is getting frist's complete attention. why not those things he knows well, such as focusing his time on ethics rules and stock holdings? that's something he has a lot of experience with.

Don't change the dang subject with a snarky response because you don't want to debate the issue. IMO the culture of our country is a hell of a lot more important than some mundane stock ruling. It goes to the very core of what we are and who we are. If you don't want to have that discussion then fine but don't belittle it with a typical condescending spittle.

Of course you would like the republicans to lay off this as you agree and support the gay-agenda. I understand your politics here.

Again I DO see why you don't want to have the republic decide this issue as the republic doesn't agree with democrats on this one. As USUAL the democrats are hoping to get laws passed through the courts that the PEOPLE do not want.

A constitutional amendment is the only way to protect this. I'm sure you don't feel the same way about some other constititutional amendments that were passed. But because you don't "like" this one it's frivilous.

It just doesn't pass the blue-state test, does it?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

EHHHH!! Wrong answer and you know it. All that a federal court has to do is decide that gay-marriage is constitutional in one state and other states are obligated to honor that ruling. I forget the statute, but it has something to do with interstate commerce I believe.

you are confusng state courts with federal courts.

The vast majority of states already have laws against gay-marriage, the reason for the constitutional amendment is to circumvent the very scenario I just proscribed.

the laws in each state are written differently, some survive challenges and others haven't. the scenario you mentioned doen't prevent each state from passing a constitutionally valid law.

Don't change the dang subject with a snarky response because you don't want to debate the issue. IMO the culture of our country is a hell of a lot more important than some mundane stock ruling. It goes to the very core of what we are and who we are. If you don't want to have that discussion then fine but don't belittle it with a typical condescending spittle.

so abusing one's position of Senator by using one's knowledge of impending legislation isn't as "important" as stopping a same sex couple from being recognized as a married household? clearly we have a HUGE difference in opinion. the same sex couple just want legal recognition of their committment with equality of rights associated with a married couple, whilehere is a situation of a politician abusing their role to personally profit....and you see the same sex couple as more important and a better use of the senate's time? yes, we see prorities different here. very different.

Of course you would like the republicans to lay off this as you agree and support the gay-agenda. I understand your politics here.

yes, I support equal rights for ALL americans. why don't you?

Again I DO see why you don't want to have the republic decide this issue as the republic doesn't agree with democrats on this one. As USUAL the democrats are hoping to get laws passed through the courts that the PEOPLE do not want.

A constitutional amendment is the only way to protect this. I'm sure you don't feel the same way about some other constititutional amendments that were passed. But because you don't "like" this one it's frivilous.

It just doesn't pass the blue-state test, does it?

Your paint brush isn't going to work, there are dems who will support the prohibition against same sex couples, and there are repubs who do support the right of same sex couples to be married.

no political party is "hoping to get laws passed through the courts". although individuals are trying to get the court to protect the concept of equal rights.

A constitutional amendment is NOT the ONLY way to "protect" whatever you are trying to protect.

[Drbio]

Democracy scares the hell out of mavdog and the dims.

[kg_veteran]

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, each state has to honor the sovereignty of the other states by honoring the laws of the other states. What this means practically speaking is that if I get married in Texas, I am still married if my wife and I move to another state. That other state has to recognize our marriage because it is valid and binding under the laws of the State of Texas. As I'm sure you are all aware, the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed in 1996. It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and says that states don't have to honor any other kind of marriage completed in another state. In other words, if a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, the state of Texas doesn't have to honor that marriage.

The reasoning behind a federal marriage amendment is basically the same as the reasoning for passing the amendment we just passed in Texas. Proponents of the federal DOMA are worried that when the Supreme Court reviews DOMA (as I'm sure it will at some point down the road) that the Supreme Court may strike it down as unconstitutional. This would have the effect of "forcing" states where gay marriages are illegal to honor gay marriages from other states.

It's an interesting debate, but I think if you're really in favor of states rights, then you should be in favor of the federal marriage amendment act. It doesn't prohibit any state from legalizing gay marriage. It simply prohibits one state from effectively changing the marriage laws of the other 49 states.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, each state has to honor the sovereignty of the other states by honoring the laws of the other states. What this means practically speaking is that if I get married in Texas, I am still married if my wife and I move to another state. That other state has to recognize our marriage because it is valid and binding under the laws of the State of Texas. As I'm sure you are all aware, the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed in 1996. It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and says that states don't have to honor any other kind of marriage completed in another state. In other words, if a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, the state of Texas doesn't have to honor that marriage.

The reasoning behind a federal marriage amendment is basically the same as the reasoning for passing the amendment we just passed in Texas. Proponents of the federal DOMA are worried that when the Supreme Court reviews DOMA (as I'm sure it will at some point down the road) that the Supreme Court may strike it down as unconstitutional. This would have the effect of "forcing" states where gay marriages are illegal to honor gay marriages from other states.

It's an interesting debate, but I think if you're really in favor of states rights, then you should be in favor of the federal marriage amendment act. It doesn't prohibit any state from legalizing gay marriage. It simply prohibits one state from effectively changing the marriage laws of the other 49 states.

I feel you, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the converse. You said that if you married a woman, that union would be protected by the Constitution across states. But at the same time you characterize the protection of same-sex marriages as being "forced upon" other states. On a Constitutional level, exactly what are you talking about?

DOMA notwithstanding, do you suggest that the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to everyone except the fags?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I feel you, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the converse. You said that if you married a woman, that union would be protected by the Constitution across states. But at the same time you characterize the protection of same-sex marriages as being "forced upon" other states. On a Constitutional level, exactly what are you talking about?

DOMA notwithstanding, do you suggest that the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to everyone except the fags?

Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. You're the one who called homosexuals fags, not me.

The reason that a heterosexual marriage is protected by the Constitution across states is that all 50 states have laws allowing heterosexual couples to marry. There is no conflict between the laws of the various states in that regard.

[Jeremiah]

...

[Jeremiah]

...

[Drbio]

Until you can remove your bias from your statement mavdog you are spinning your wheels.


mcslulggo- first off ....good post. Obviously I was talking of the extreme since mavdog always injects the extreme in to his drivel. It is what you have to do with him.



Here is the best point of all so far....

It's an interesting debate, but I think if you're really in favor of states rights, then you should be in favor of the federal marriage amendment act. It doesn't prohibit any state from legalizing gay marriage. It simply prohibits one state from effectively changing the marriage laws of the other 49 states.

This very clear, very solid, very reasonable point gets stomped on by the mavdog's of the world who are not interested in State's rights, but rather furthering their agenda of forced homosexual acceptance.


With this in mind, the State of Texas has spoken and the voice was overwhelmingly clear. Although there are some who differ within that voice, the voice said that marriage is between man and woman. There is no "unjust" or "incorrect" or even harmful action taking place in this instance. This is not a law which says that gay couples cannot have benefits etc. It just says that their union is not one which fits the definition of marriage. To allow another state to override the will of the people in this state is wrong. And trying to fit a hotbutton issue like slavery into this is disingenuous.

[Mavdog]

oh, so you don't have any "bias"? interesting position.

This very clear, very solid, very reasonable point gets stomped on by the mavdog's of the world who are not interested in State's rights, but rather furthering their agenda of forced homosexual acceptance.

I am not that interested in the issue of state's rights, "states rights" is a strong plank of the conservative philosophy. Frist is supposedly a conservative, or at the least he proclaims that he is, and the point (these points seem to fly right by you btw) is: What happened to the strong belief in states rights, a belief that is contradicted by the demogaugic promotion of this constitutional amendment on a heterosexual connotation of marriage.

do I have an "agenda of forced homosexual acceptance"? yes, in a rather twisted way in which you put it, I guess that is true. My view is that we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals, so yes in a way it is forcing those who want to discriminate to NOT discriminate and to accept homosexuals as people who deserve the SAME RIGHTS as a hetroexual person gets.

With this in mind, the State of Texas has spoken and the voice was overwhelmingly clear. Although there are some who differ within that voice, the voice said that marriage is between man and woman. There is no "unjust" or "incorrect" or even harmful action taking place in this instance. This is not a law which says that gay couples cannot have benefits etc. It just says that their union is not one which fits the definition of marriage. To allow another state to override the will of the people in this state is wrong. And trying to fit a hotbutton issue like slavery into this is disingenuous.

you should become better informed about the Texas law. It DOES deny equal benefits to same sex couples.

much like when people of different races were discriminated against, so to are homosexuals today targets of discrimination. to deny that there is discrimination, and to deny that there are benefits that heterosexuals enjoy which same sex couples cannot by law enjoy, is what is truly disingenuous.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you should become better informed about the Texas law. It DOES deny equal benefits to same sex couples.

After researching this online it appears this is not clearly defined:

The amendment will not affect any private contracts between individuals or corporations relating to guardianships, hospital visitation, or entitlement to proceeds from insurance policies. But Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said that the amendment could affect gay adoptions or companies that offer domestic partner benefits protected by civil unions. "We're going to carve out a class of individuals and say you cannot share those benefits," Shapleigh said. Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said that at least one major Texas insurance company has stopped offering health-care coverage to domestic partners after Texas passed its Defense of Marriage Act two years ago. Ellis said the ban on same-sex marriages is reminiscent of the laws written by Texas senators decades ago to discriminate against black people. "At least they had the good sense to never write their bigotry into the state constitution," Ellis said. "In some of our sister states, they did write that trash into their constitution, and they've had holy H getting it out."

link

Can you link anywhere that decisively answers this statement you've made? I know it is used as the rallying cry against the amendment but I can't find anything to substantiate that claim.

[Jeremiah]

...

[Drbio]

Mavdog- did you miss kg_vets very powerful point? Let me rehash it here for you since you are experiencing comprehension problems....

It's an interesting debate, but I think if you're really in favor of states rights, then you should be in favor of the federal marriage amendment act. It doesn't prohibit any state from legalizing gay marriage. It simply prohibits one state from effectively changing the marriage laws of the other 49 states.

Since Frist is a defender of states rights this effort makes perfect sense and he should be commended for standing up in what he believes so strongly in not denigrated by some two bit internet hack with no clue.

At least you admitted that you have a pro-homosexual agenda. There is no legal right for homosexuals to receive the benefits of a political class because they choose to make a deviant sexual unnatural choice. I am proud to live in a State where they are not afraid to buck the political correctness appeasement machine and stand for what they believe in. The defense of marriage efforts across this land are to be applauded. People who make disgusting deviant sexual choices should not be allowed to dictate otherwise. There is no covert denial of benefits for gay couples. There is no law that prohibits companies etc from awarding them benefits, etc (although I certainly understand those companies who choose not to do so). This is about states rights and the defense of marriage. Fortunately....in Texas, we don't have to worry about that because we have listened to the will of the people and have enacted a mechanism to defend it. However, if Massachusetts or soem other state chooses differently (their right), it should not infringe upon the will of the people of the great State of Texas who have clearly and decisively put this issue to rest.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Mavdog- did you miss kg_vets very powerful point? Let me rehash it here for you since you are experiencing comprehension problems....

It's an interesting debate, but I think if you're really in favor of states rights, then you should be in favor of the federal marriage amendment act. It doesn't prohibit any state from legalizing gay marriage. It simply prohibits one state from effectively changing the marriage laws of the other 49 states.

Mavies first foray was:

I wonder what happened to the "state's rights" banner of the conservative wing of which frist is supposedly a member?

Second was:

no, that's inaccurate. the courts are ruling on the laws, if those laws are not constitutional the state legislatures can pass new laws that are constitutional.

Third was:

A constitutional amendment is NOT the ONLY way to "protect" whatever you are trying to protect.

Fourth finally:

A constitutional amendment is NOT the ONLY way to "protect" whatever you are trying to protect.

Since that has been absolutely shot down the argument has transformed itself into the ACTUAL one that is always trying to be made but is skirted around by saying that no constitutional amendment is needed. And that argument is that:

"If you don't support gay-marriage you are a bigot, because I say so".

[Jeremiah]

...

[kg_veteran]

Frist is supposedly a conservative, or at the least he proclaims that he is, and the point (these points seem to fly right by you btw) is: What happened to the strong belief in states rights, a belief that is contradicted by the demogaugic promotion of this constitutional amendment on a heterosexual connotation of marriage.

You're suggesting that Frist's position is inconsistent. It's not. He's supporting an amendment which would prevent one state from imposing its definition of marriage on the other 49 states. He's supporting the right of each state to decide whether it will allow gay marriage. That, after all, is what the amendment would do -- leave it up to each state to decide.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You're suggesting that Frist's position is inconsistent. It's not. He's supporting an amendment which would prevent one state from imposing its definition of marriage on the other 49 states. He's supporting the right of each state to decide whether it will allow gay marriage. That, after all, is what the amendment would do -- leave it up to each state to decide.

can you provide a draft of it? from the speech by bush in which he threw his support towards the passage of a marriage amendment. I guess I just took for granted he spoke as leader of the party:

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

that sure sets out a ton of what a state cannot decide. pretty much the whole enchilada.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

can you provide a draft of it?

This is the most recent version I've seen:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

That amendment wouldn't prohibit state legislation allowing same-sex civil unions. It's debatable whether it would prohibit same-sex marriages. My view is that it probably wouldn't; however, I can see the opposite view.

Personally, I'm opposed to a federal constitutional amendment PROHIBITING states from allowing gay marriage, if the people of that state (by and through their elected representatives) so choose. The rationale behind such an amendment would again be, however, that if you don't make it constitutional, then someone will challenge state laws prohibiting gay marriage on a federal constitutional basis (e.g., Equal Protection). My thought is, the second sentence of this proposed amendment would be sufficient to protect states that don't want gay marriage without prohibiting states that want to pass such legislation from doing so.

that sure sets out a ton of what a state cannot decide. pretty much the whole enchilada.

I agree, and I think that kind of legislation would probably go too far, as I discussed above.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

This is the most recent version I've seen:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

That amendment wouldn't prohibit state legislation allowing same-sex civil unions. It's debatable whether it would prohibit same-sex marriages. My view is that it probably wouldn't; however, I can see the opposite view.

Personally, I'm opposed to a federal constitutional amendment PROHIBITING states from allowing gay marriage, if the people of that state (by and through their elected representatives) so choose. The rationale behind such an amendment would again be, however, that if you don't make it constitutional, then someone will challenge state laws prohibiting gay marriage on a federal constitutional basis (e.g., Equal Protection). My thought is, the second sentence of this proposed amendment would be sufficient to protect states that don't want gay marriage without prohibiting states that want to pass such legislation from doing so.

I agree, and I think that kind of legislation would probably go too far, as I discussed above.

kg you might take the position that the amendment wouldn't prohibit any state from allowing homosexual marriage, but that's pretty tough to do with the exact wording about a "man and a women" coupled with the prohibition of any other type of union.

clearly this amendment, if approved as above, removes the right of any state to allow homosexual marriage, my description of frist is accurate.

the bottom line is with doma is an amendment needed? a presumption that it might be overturned doesn't sway the argument imo.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg you might take the position that the amendment wouldn't prohibit any state from allowing homosexual marriage, but that's pretty tough to do with the exact wording about a "man and a women" coupled with the prohibition of any other type of union.

I've indicated that I think only the second sentence is necessary to accomplish the goal of leaving the matter to the states.

clearly this amendment, if approved as above, removes the right of any state to allow homosexual marriage, my description of frist is accurate.

In fairness to Frist, I looked at his website and can't find a draft of the amendment he's supporting. I also read one of his speeches on the matter as well as the article that started this thread, and neither make clear what form of the amendment Frist would support.

IF Frist supports an amendment which prohibits states from passing legislation to allow gay marriage if that particular state so chooses, then I disagree with him. If, however, he simply supports an amendment which leaves the matter up to each state, I agree with him.

the bottom line is with doma is an amendment needed? a presumption that it might be overturned doesn't sway the argument imo.

It is needed if the proponents of DOMA want to ensure that it remains the law.

I don't think the Constitution will be amended right now. However, if the Supreme Court DOES strike down DOMA at some point in the future, I suspect you'll see a swift response from the majority of America. In fact, if DOMA is struck down, I suspect there's a really good chance a Constitutional amendment would be passed.

[Jeremiah]

...

[kg_veteran]

Jeremiah - There is a "public policy" exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause that many constitutional scholars believe would apply in this case. That exception has been applied in the past, for instance, regarding polygamy laws. DOMA has been challenged, but all lower court rulings so far have upheld its constitutionality.

What it boils down to is, even though there are pretty good arguments that DOMA is constitutional, the only way to take that decision out of the hands of the Supreme Court and put it in the hands of the people is by amending the Constitution.

[Jeremiah]

[...

[Drbio]

obtuse to a fault.

[mnmpeanut]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

- Thomas Jefferson


all i can say is....why?

why is so important for you people to rule against a group that isn't harming you in any way? it just makes no sense to me. it all seems so unnecessary.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mnmpeanut

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

- Thomas Jefferson


all i can say is....why?

why is so important for you people to rule against a group that isn't harming you in any way? i just makes no sense to me. it all seems so unnecessary.

If I believed that homosexual marriage didn't harm society in any way, I probably wouldn't oppose it.

[mnmpeanut]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

If I believed that homosexual marriage didn't harm society in any way, I probably wouldn't oppose it.

then, do you oppose such things as alcohol consumption, fast food, divorce, single parenting, urban sprawl, SUV's, etc.? there have been arguements made that each of these things has harmed society in some way. would you be for banning any or all of them? or do you only target gay marraige because of it's supposed religious implications?

i know this sounds silly, but, to me, so does going out of your way to "harm" someone else for no other reason than because you think their way of life is wrong.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mnmpeanut

then, do you oppose such things as alcohol consumption, fast food, divorce, single parenting, urban sprawl, SUV's, etc.? there have been arguements made that each of these things has harmed society in some way. would you be for banning any or all of them? or do you only target gay marraige because of it's supposed religious implications?

That dog won't hunt. Not only are your comparisons apples and oranges, but I don't have to be in favor of legislation to ban all forms of behavior that are potentially harmful to be in favor of a ban on gay marriages. I'm sorry; that's just silly.

i know this sounds silly, but, to me, so does going out of your way to "harm" someone else for no other reason than because you think their way of life is wrong.

I'm not going out of my way to harm anyone.

[mnmpeanut]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That dog won't hunt. Not only are your comparisons apples and oranges, but I don't have to be in favor of legislation to ban all forms of behavior that are potentially harmful to be in favor of a ban on gay marriages. I'm sorry; that's just silly.

I'm not going out of my way to harm anyone.

"any or all" then why this one? i would argue that alcohol has a much more tramatic affect on people, families, society than gay marraige ever could. is it that you don't mind chugging a beer with the guys, so it must be okay, but since you're not gay, then that has to be banned?. reeks of hypocrisy to me.

and yes, taking the effort to argue, signing petittions (assuming you have or you would if presented with one), and getting out and voting against it is going out of your way.

[Drbio]

Thick skin is a virtue that should be required in this forum.

[Jeremiah]

...