New Constitutional Amendment

[dreamboy]

It seems like each day we hear of more individual rights being tested. Now the Head of the Executive Branch of our government wants to make it official in the constitution as what should rightly make up a marriage and an official U. S. family. This is scary!

What do you think? Should there be a constitutional amendment to this effect to get us all 'back on track'? What do you think the chances are of this happening?

 

[Mimi]

I am STRONGLY against a constitutional amendment defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and effectively banning gay marriages. I feel if we are truly the land of the free, we should practice that, and stop trying to remove citizens equal rights simply because their way of life, or their views, are different from our own. It's total and complete discrimination, and as an open minded and liberal nation, we should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering such a thing.

Unfortunately, though, I think there is a strong chance of this new amendment passing and being put into effect. I, for one, will be severely disappointed in this country and it's leaders if that does happen.

Mimi

 

[maverick83]

I am STRONGLY against a constitutional amendment defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and effectively banning gay marriages. I feel if we are truly the land of the free, we should practice that, and stop trying to remove citizens equal rights simply because their way of life, or their views, are different from our own. It's total and complete discrimination, and as an open minded and liberal nation, we should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering such a thing.

Unfortunately, though, I think there is a strong chance of this new amendment passing and being put into effect. I, for one, will be severely disappointed in this country and it's leaders if that does happen.

Mimi

I agree, entirely. Denying homosexuals the right of marriage is discrimination.

I would echo the rest of that argument, but I don't think I could be any more disappointed in this country and its leaders.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Leave it up to Bush and his cronies to actually go this far against gay marriage.... There is a much simpler way to deal with this issue. Instead of redefining marriage in the Constitution, why not just redefine tax policies concerning marriage? Taxes are actually a lot of the reason why this is such a big issue. The cover story is, of course, religion.... However, the practical issue involved here is that tax policies are geared toward heterosexual marriages. If we expanded and adjusted these policies to include homosexual marriage, then half of the controversy would disappear. From then on, you'd just have to deal with the religious right throwing a hissy fit, and the best thing you can use against them is the "separation of church and state" clause in our Constitution. It's no big surprise that Republicans have continued to make this a moral issue instead of one based on freedom, privacy, and tax policy.

 

[WraithTickler]

My two cents on the matter: I'm not sure if I favor gay marriages and to be honest my inclination is against them. However, like prohibition, I do not agree with amending the Constitution for the sake of social policy in a case like this. Bush should know better in that regard that the Constitution is there to provide a viable framework for the countries laws. If he has a problem with it, there is the legislature and judicial review.

 

[maverick83]

I just finished posting on this topic over at TickleTheater, and I feel I did a better job elaborating on that one, so I am going to copy and paste it...

Here's where I stand on the issue:

Denying homosexuals the right of legal marriage is discrimination. (Religious marriage may be another case, but that decision is in the hands of the religious institution a given homosexual couple wishes to be wed by.) A homosexual can’t help being gay any more than I can help being straight. As for religious beliefs, let’s not go ass-backwards. I realize our laws were originally based on religious beliefs, but I think it’s time for a change. No longer is one belief system shared by 99.9% of the population, and our laws need to reflect that. We need to define laws as based on that which is essential for the survival of humanity and the equal rights of human beings. I am tired of people saying that this country was founded on Christian beliefs. No. This country was founded on a little thing called freedom, including freedom of religion. To make that statement is to push one’s religious beliefs on others, and is the exact opposite of what this country was founded on. But back to the point. Religious beliefs aside, there is no harm in homosexual marriage. I say let ‘em get married, and mind your own business.

If I may ask a question about the religious issue, though...why would your God condemn something a person has no control over?

 

[the_Baron]

myself and most true conservatives would generally not favor an amendment to the constitution. if the position is to be pursued, it should be handled through federal legislation.

i understand this is partly already in place.

under a complete Federal law ban on same sex marriages, states would still have the right to recognize civil unions.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

with respect to people like mimi

i will keep my comments clean.
i am all in favor of this amendment.
it is due to a vocal perverted minority that this need has come to pass. the status quo wasn't good enough, they (the homosexuals) had to push the envelope. fine, so now feel the back lash. an amendment to define marriage.

steve

 

[Ayla ny]

here is a link to a wonderful organization that is trying to do something about this.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/home.html

I couldn’t agree more, dreamboy. it IS scary.

 

[Haltickling]

Forbidding gay marriages by federal legislation is one thing, changing the constitution is something completely different. IMO, such an amendment would overthrow the original constitution where people are free in their pursuit of happiness. It's a step back to the Middle Ages, if not BC. And it would make the US look like any other fanatic, fundamentalist religious state. What's next?

For changing the constitution here in Germany, it would take a 2/3 majority in Parliament AND a 2/3 majority in each of the federal states. How's the US procedure for an Amendment?

 

[Shem the Penman]

Two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states. So, basically, this turdburger has no chance of passing -- even the Congressional Republicans aren't enthusiastic about it, and several Republican Senators have already indicated they oppose the idea, and the Republican majority in Congress isn't anywhere near large enough to force the amendment through. It's only a vocal perverted minority that supports it.

 

[kis123]

Re: with respect to people like mimi

i will keep my comments clean.
i am all in favor of this amendment.
it is due to a vocal perverted minority that this need has come to pass. the status quo wasn't good enough, they (the homosexuals) had to push the envelope. fine, so now feel the back lash. an amendment to define marriage.

steve

Even though I am opposed to gay marriages in general, I'm concerned about using the Constitution in order to do it. Firstly, It's not going to change the minds of those that are homosexual to get married. The parties involved will still get married somewhere.

I am uncomfortable with using the legal system to gain control over a group of people. It took hundreds of years to get out of the mess it did to my ancestors. And the Constitution still contains the 3/5ths clause even though it's since been amended, still exists on paper for the world to see.

Tbbw, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. These are spiritual beliefs that transcend over most religions. If a person choses a homosexual lifestyle, that is their business, but I'm not sure if it should have the EXACT same bearing as a traditional heterosexual marriage. I know I may get blasted for feeling this way, but that's the chance I take for putting my opinions in writing.

As I mentioned on a previous thread, we really need to get the legal system out of our business. They're in it way too far as it is. There's gotta be some way this can be worked out without a Constitutional Amendment. But, if they actually pass this amendment, they need to go in there and edit some of the crap that's already there too!

Keep in mind people, if this is done to the homosexual community, what will be next? Who will be the next group the Constitution will get amended for? When does it stop and with whom?

 

[kis123]

I feel if we are truly the land of the free, we should practice that, and stop trying to remove citizens equal rights simply because their way of life, or their views, are different from our own. It's total and complete discrimination, and as an open minded and liberal nation, we should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering such a thing.

Newsflash!

Anyone who thinks this is an open-minded and liberal culture simply just doesn't see what really is. It's just more open minded and liberal than other countries that wouldn't even have this issue on the table at all! Our so-called forefathers who founded this country were extremely conservative in their views. It has been passed through the generations as well.

Underneath all of the liberal rah-rah, we still have problems with racism, sexism, eletism, classism, and a whole list of "isms" in this country. We have a tendency to talk out of both sides of the mouth and flip standards when it is convenient.

We carry a double standard in the world today. We say you're free to do and be who you are, but then we use the legal system to keep us in check. I don't mind checks and balances, but I get them through my church and my faith. Anytime the government gets involved, it hurts the more.

Once again, I really don't support homosexuality. But I do support freedom of choice. If a person chooses to live a homesexual lifestyle, they should not be forced to live it like lepers. The closet door is already open and many have come out. I doubt if you're getting anyone to go back in.

 

[zyclos_b]

I think that this amendment thing is a bunch of bs.

It's just beyond absurd.
Pretty much speaks for itself. You would have to be smoking some kind of crack.................


What's next? Minorities(Asians, blacks, etc) can't get married?


Also, there is such a thing as seperation of church and state.

 

[kis123]

I think that this amendment thing is a bunch of bs.

It's just beyond absurd.
Pretty much speaks for itself. You would have to be smoking some kind of crack.................


What's next? Minorities(Asians, blacks, etc) can't get married?


Also, there is such a thing as seperation of church and state.

As far as separation of church and state is concerned it is said that the government cannot establish a religion. This argument has been used by liberal groups to move God out of most places in the United States, but not out of the hearts of those who love Him.

As far as the rest of the post is concerned, you're absoulutely right. If you amend the constitution for this issue, there would be no stopping them from using it to rip the few rights and freedoms we have left away from others.

 

[MrMacphisto]

As far as separation of church and state is concerned it is said that the government cannot establish a religion. This argument has been used by liberal groups to move God out of most places in the United States, but not out of the hearts of those who love Him.

Um... Kis123, usually the "separation of church and state" is used by liberal groups to protect the rights of non-Christians and people who don't follow a religion (like myself). The issue is not to have religion as a basis for law. How would you feel if I were Hindu, and I decided, because I was Hindu, I thought the nation's laws should be based on Hindu morality. Well, I think you'd be pretty pissed, eh? It's the same way with Christianity. I (and many others) don't appreciate it when law takes a religious turn, because basically, that logic assumes that everyone's Christian. Since that's obviously not the truth, legislation should always be secular in nature. If you're against something for religious reasons, find a practical reason to be against it, instead of using ideologies that can only apply to believers.

 

[the_Baron]

for all practical purposes, most of our laws, which may be called secular, have approximates in religious beliefs as well. this is likely because most religions have ethical values in sync with societal governence.

Kis is correct about the amendment being there to prohibit the establishment of a national religion.

keep in mind that the early continental congress and the U.S. congress would invoke the Deity prior to beginning its sessions. and our money still bears :in God we Trust; and how about the Pledge of Allegience - one nation, under God.

 

[kis123]

Um... Kis123, usually the "separation of church and state" is used by liberal groups to protect the rights of non-Christians and people who don't follow a religion (like myself). The issue is not to have religion as a basis for law. How would you feel if I were Hindu, and I decided, because I was Hindu, I thought the nation's laws should be based on Hindu morality. Well, I think you'd be pretty pissed, eh? It's the same way with Christianity. I (and many others) don't appreciate it when law takes a religious turn, because basically, that logic assumes that everyone's Christian. Since that's obviously not the truth, legislation should always be secular in nature. If you're against something for religious reasons, find a practical reason to be against it, instead of using ideologies that can only apply to believers.

I am against utilizing the constitution to exclude rights from a group of people even though I do not agree with their lifestlye. Isn't that practical enough?

If I lived in a nation where the predominant religion were Hindu, Muslim, or anything else, I'd feel the same. America is the one of very few nations I know of where religion of all types can be freely expressed. Anywhere else, this is not so. Whatever is the predominant religion of that country, they have the rights and priveledges. To be exact, religion issues in other countries is close to what we go through in racial issues in this country.

Whether you like it or not, law has it's very basis in religion and in my opinion is the secular alternative to it. If you are of a different faith or have no specific faith at all, then the law especially applies to you. In my faith, we are to follow the laws of man as long as they don't override the laws of God.

My Christian counterparts may not agree about my opinion of using the constitution to control or abolish gay marriages. I believe my God gives me the power to chose my lifestlye as well as theirs. That cannot be constitutionally amended.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

I think that this amendment thing is a bunch of bs.

It's just beyond absurd.
Pretty much speaks for itself. You would have to be smoking some kind of crack.................


What's next? Minorities(Asians, blacks, etc) can't get married?


Also, there is such a thing as seperation of church and state.

thank you for bringing up this important point! what about the seperation of church, and state? in mass. their state supreme court has ruled that homos. have to be allowed to get married, not just a civil cerimony. what about the rights of the church, and minister/priest/rabi? are they going to have a gun held to their head and ordered to preform the cerimony? just cause 3 assholes in mass. think it's hunky-dory, are all the churches, and synogogs suposed to roll over and play dead? this is a point i have been saying since this all started a few weeks ago.

zycobs, your fears about minorities is pointless, and really doesn't deserve an answer.

steve

 

[kis123]

thank you for bringing up this important point! what about the seperation of church, and state? in mass. their state supreme court has ruled that homos. have to be allowed to get married, not just a civil cerimony. what about the rights of the church, and minister/priest/rabi? are they going to have a gun held to their head and ordered to preform the cerimony? just cause 3 assholes in mass. think it's hunky-dory, are all the churches, and synogogs suposed to roll over and play dead? this is a point i have been saying since this all started a few weeks ago.

zycobs, your fears about minorities is pointless, and really doesn't deserve an answer.

steve

Steve I agree you to a certain point. But, there are already churches that perform the homosexual marriage ceremonies, so let them continue to go to them. We can sweep it back under the rug if it makes people feel better, but it won't make the issue go away.

The issues about minorities are not as pointless as you think, but maybe should be discussed on another thread.

And by the way NO ONE expects any church and synagogue to roll over and play dead, like was done when prayer was eliminated from schools (sorry Macphisto and Jim, I had to get that one in 😀 ). If the state does not establish a religion, the state cannot tell churhes who they can and cannot marry in their houses of worship. In my church there are instances that my pastors won't even marry heterosexual couples. Those are few and far between, but they happen. No one can force a church that is private and is supported on private funds who they can or can't marry.

I hope I helped to settle that one.

 

[Sadistictickler]

Holland's got gay-marriage. Heck, a couple of years ago when I was still in highschool one of my teachers took a week off to get married with her girlfriend. Like I'd give a shit about them getting married or not, why should we deny the happyness marriage brings to gays? I don't care about gays as long as they don't bother me, and well, areenactor, for your information there's a Brittish gay bisshop, apart from the fact that there are numerous gay priests. (who else would bless a little boy from behind? hetrosexuals? 🙄 ) And "what about the church's right" is total nonsense, seeing the fact that the English church has "accepted" gayness and thus denying gay marriage would be totally hypocrite.

 

[natural tickler]

I hope there is an amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. it needs to be saved. Gay marriage is just plain damn wrong period. Even if you're not religious or don't believe in God (that's a shame), you will notice in the Bible there is not one gay relationship. Why? because if forbids it. It didn't say Adam and Steve, it said Adam and Eve!! Let's keep one thing pure if we do nothing else😀

 

[Sadistictickler]

oh jezus, quit about the book of inconsistencies 😛

besides, biologically if we had Adam and Steve there would've been little hope for offspring then eh 😛

 

[natural tickler]

ST, the Bible is not a book of inconsistencies, it is the truest book even written.😀

 

[Mimi]

I hope there is an amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. it needs to be saved. Gay marriage is just plain damn wrong period. Even if you're not religious or don't believe in God (that's a shame), you will notice in the Bible there is not one gay relationship. Why? because if forbids it. It didn't say Adam and Steve, it said Adam and Eve!! Let's keep one thing pure if we do nothing else😀

Ah, but using that argument means we must base our government and lives on religious beliefs. That is intersecting the church and the state, and removes our freedom of religion and religious beliefs. Many people in the U.S. do not practice christianity. So should they all be forced to live by a book they put no faith in? That alone breaks the rights put forth by the constitution.

Mimi