Nor is marriage exclusive to Catholicism-or even Christianity, for that matter.
Not sure what your definiton of “classic conservative” is, but I’ll assume you mean Goldwater type. I don’t know if I’d agree with him 100%, but close enough for government work, which is what we’re talking about here anyway.
I’d actually oppose an amendment on the state level as well (which might make me more liberal than Kerry 
), but I’d support a states right to enact one if done so with the required majority.
And then you take the position that requires that the government actively seek to harm and destroy my life. What a lovely example of humanity you are.
Marriage predates Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism and all the related stuff by several hundred if not thousands of years. Catholicism has no unique claim on the term or concept of marriage, so why should I, as an Episcopalian, give a flying f-ck what the pope and his church consider marriage to be?
And where do you draw the line on states enshrining fundamental discrimination into their constitutions?
Can a state pass an amendment forcing gay people to ride in the backs of buses, to drink from separate water fountains, to eat at the back of the luncheon counter, to wear little pink traingles on their clothes?
And if it can do all those things to gays, or even just deny us the basic, fundamental right to marriage, then why can’t it also enshrine such laws barring Jews, blacks, Methodists or first born left-handed children from marrying or sitting in the front of buses or drinking from community water fountains, etc?
I got a good guffaw from the “marriage is Cathlolic” thing.
Classic.
Actually, I think what EvilGhandi (appropriate, no?) was saying with that “sacrament in Catholicism” thing is that he believes that since Catholics hold marriage as so sacred, gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because it would enshrine in law an action that breaks or mocks one of the basic tenets of their religion. As opposed to the literal, more obvious interpretation, that marriage is Catholic in origin, or specific to Catholicism, which is, of course, silly.
Not that his assertion that we shouldn’t do the right thing for fear of offending any one religious group isn’t silly either, but a whole lot less silly than the interpretation most folks are taking right now.
Cool answer!!
John Mace: In your heart, you know he’s right! 
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Actually, I think what EvilGhandi (appropriate, no?) was saying with that “sacrament in Catholicism” thing is that he believes that since Catholics hold marriage as so sacred, gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because it would enshrine in law an action that breaks or mocks one of the basic tenets of their religion/QUOTE]
The Church of Zagadka hereby declares the drinking of beer to be the most holy of sancraments, and finds that heathens shall not partake.
Donations are $20 a year. You get a membership card.
/sits back and waits for congress to pass the law
well actually it is, you may not like that, but well no point going there.
Not bullsheet at all, but a needed diferentation between different unions (civil, religious, moral, ect.). Right now civil and religious share a common term.
This is a big problem as, I’m sure you know, many religions view homosexuality as a sin. But lets face it we are all sinners,each with our own vices. But the problem is really with people who choose to identify themselves by their sins. Gay peopel who are openly gay are just as hidious to some religions as people who are openly child molesters or adulterors and ID themselves as such.
To many the term gay marriage (or just marriage if the ‘members’ are the same gender) is just like saying pediofile marriage, or adulterious marriage, it just doesn’t work.
It is in NO WAY a 2nd class citizenship, it is the sepperation of Church and state that so many people claim is in The Constitution (but is not).
From kbird the Theif
Or “black marriage” or “hispanic marriage”…
Equating homosexuality with pedophilia, excellent move.
Moderator’s Note: It doesn’t work that way, SolGrundy. This thread is in Great Debates until the Moderators move it elsewhere. Which we have not.
If you keep slinging insults in Great Debates, we won’t move your post to the Pit for you (and we certainly won’t move someone else’s post to the Pit just on your say-so). Keep it up and you won’t be posting anywhere on the SDMB, not even in the Pit.
You are absolutely correct. There is a reason I try to stay out of “Great Debates,” and it’s because I don’t have the temper for it.
It’s important to draw the distinction between different meanings of the term “marriage” – something I keep having to repeat here.
First, it means something to religious people – the definition of the bond covenantually and in some churches sacramentally joined in by two people before God and blessed by Him through His Church.
Second, it means whatever the government in power says that it means, being a legally recognized relationship between two (and in some places more) people whereby they have certain legally recognized rights and responsibilities vis-à-vis each other and vis-à-vis the government.
Third, it means the joining together of two people who act to make themselves married to each other and consider themselves spouses, regardless of what church or state have to say about it. Under this definition, Scott and Jeremy Evil would be married if they visited Georgia, even though that state does not recognize gay marriages – because what they mean by it is the pledge they’ve made to each other.
It would be quite possible to structure scenarios where any combination of these three definitions were valid – people who consider themselves married and whose church considers them married but whom the state refuses to recognize as married, for example.
The traditional definition of who may marry legally (i.e., under definition #2) is a man and a woman, not presently married to someone else, of legal age to contract a marriage and with the intent to do so, and who are not related within the legal standards of consanguinuity. But that definition varies all over the place, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, already. For example, are two 17-year-olds, who are legally first cousins owing to one of them having been adopted, legally able to marry? Ask a lawyer – the answers will vary according to the jurisdiction.
In the United States, the right to marry is a fundamental right of U.S. citizens guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, which the states cannot “capriciously” deny to persons, as by miscegenation laws. The question people need to ask themselves is, does my feeling of what constitutes a valid marriage impinge on the legal rights of someone who does not share that feeling, or is it founded in some legal ground that constitutes a bar to them marrying? I think in general people who oppose things like gay marriage and who care to be honest with themselves will find themselves falling into the first category rather than the second.
The vote is due this Wednesday, it appears. And, of course, it looks to fail. From most nose counts, the Bigot Brigade doesn’t even have enough votes to force cloture if the Democrats attempt to block the vote.
This is an interesting article. It seems Mrs. Cheney is a far better person, to say nothing of far better parent, than her scoundrel of a husband.
Pfft. I don’t care about what the churches think. We have a civil term, and it’s ‘marriage’. If the churches don’t like it, they can make their own word up. What they get their panties in a twist about is not my problem.
Under US law, pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality is not.
The various religous groups are free to continue to shun homosexuals and are not required to recognize their marriage.
Fortunately, I don’t see the amendment passing.
This states that Kerry would support a state ban, but not a Federal one. It’s the Federal one that is being discussed in the OP. Where is a cite that Kerry supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, especially when I heard on NPR that he’s breaking off campaiging so he can be in Washington to vote against it?
Thanks,
JOhn.