A constitutional amendment?! Gay marriage is so important that it needs to be banned by constitutional amendment?! Communism, flag burning, and long hair on men are all less dangerous to America than gay marriage?
It will make it a fun read. I picture a future poli-sci student reading the constitution, enjoying the document as a testament to one of humanity’s seminal (and, some would say, successful) attempts to create an effective polity that draws its authority from consent, and then suck there near the end are the words “Fags can’t marry!” I’ve never been more proud.
Be fair, now. The proposed amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman, which leaves the polygamists out as well.
The law, currently, states that marriage is a legal union between a man and woman, a state of affairs that has been the norm in America for the last four hundred years. The burden is on the opponents of this restriction, in my view, to explain why it should not remain such.
My personal belief is that liberalizing the institution of marriage would remove all real meaning from it. This would make already pressing problems like fatherlessness and nonsupport immensely worse. This is what conservatives mean when we say that the change would hurt families. We don’t fear gay marriage so much as fear societal collapse from weak and transient “marriage” in name only.
great chance to enlighten my ignorance here, then.
how, if two people of same gender willingly enter into a life-long commitment to each other exclusively, does that translate into a “weak and transient ‘marriage’ in name only”? if it’s the fact that they are physically unable to procreate together, then are you saying that any and all sterile male/female couples aren’t really married?
similarly, exactly what does same-sex marriage have to do with the price of beans, or contributing to (or detracting from) fatherlessness and nonsupport?
i’m trying very hard to believe you’ve got some logic behind such statements, rather than that you’re just throwing up specious scare phrases.
Because it’s discriminatory against a class of people isn’t a good enough reason for you? No-fault divorce is more a threat than allowing a few homosexuals to get married. The idea of divorce itself is more of a threat.
How is this “hurt” going to happen? All the straight couples who want to marry still could. They’re aren’t going to be stopped from doing so. And allowing homosexuals to marry is going to make the straight couple divorce more likely in what way?
Your whole arguement so far is a complete Non Sequitur, as lachesis points out.
The divorce rate is pretty high, you know. Maybe you should ban marriage between a man and a woman. I’m not sure who “we” is, but if you look at divorce rates, you’ll find that stricter, more conservative religious groups are leading the way.
Precedent doesn’t make it right, but the address the first part of your statement, I would say that the fact that this is the way the law is phrased makes a constitutional amendment banning it totally unnecessary. It’s just an attempt to placate the religious right voting bloc.
finer points aside, I feel that Mr. Frist in simply pandering to the lowest common denominator that is his constituancy. (my apologies to those Tennesseans who did not vote for Frist)
I can’t decide if I think it is risky or not. On the one hand, it seems like Americans’ political memory is so short that Frist could come out in favor of Hitler and people will forget about it with in a year or two–if it takes that long. On the other hand, it seems like I recall David Duke’s past playing a pretty destructive role in his career.
Is Frist in re-election danger? Surely his political future includes pandering to NY & California, right? Wouldn’t a more moderate anti-gay marriage tone be better in the long run? Maybe he’s banking on a societal backlash against gays or something.
It’s probably not. A vast majority of the people whom it alienates were never going to vote for him anyway, and comments like this endear him to the far-right types who lead the party. Frist isn’t the only one who plays this kind of game. Bush does it to, and he DOES have to worry about re-election. (I wouldn’t say Frist has to worry about NY or anywhere else, since he is only a Senator at the moment.)
Sometimes when I get home from a long day on the job, I like to drink a tall glass of beer. Now my neighbor, who has been out of work for the last six months and spends his time playing video games and watching G4, will occasionally open his fridge and pour himself a tall glass of Bud. Wiil someone tell me how his partaking of the grain juice lessens the pleasure I derive from sipping the suds?
Jeeze, Czarcasm, you are so dense. If we don’t act, and act quickly, in a few years your “neighbor” will be a couple of gay men who will sneak over to your house while you’re at work and play perverted gay games involving them taking turns sticking your beer bottles in each other’s asses. You wannna drink that at night??? It’s an inevitable slippery slope!!!
After the decision by SCOTUS last week, Frist, as the Senate Majority Leader, is carrying the flag for the Republican base and letting them know that Washington is paying attention to them. In their eyes, the administration has drifted a little too far center for their comfort (Medicare reform, pressure on Israel, muted congratulations on Affirmative Action decision the week before).
Understandably, Bush himself doesn’t want to touch this issue with a 10-foot pole. When he spends political capital, he tends to make sure he gets his money’s worth (the 2002 midterms and the Aqaba Summit are some examples). The Repubs sent out Frist as the top-ranking Senator to offer up sops to the base, that’s all.
The pubbies would get a lot more political brownie points from a flag-burning amendment then this, and it would be easier to pass to boot. As GoHeels said, this is just political posturing. It will never make it out of committee, and if it actually hit the floor, it would be filibustered.
Mr. Moto, I believe the solution to the problem would be to pass an amendment allowing gay marriage, but prohibiting heterosexual divorce. That allows the heteros to have a stronger, more binding notion of marriage, while at the same time, making gay people happy. Win-win all around.
I realise this is your belief, but would please explain the exact mechanism by which this would occur? How does broadening the definition of marriage to include two men or two women weaken it to be meaningless?
The notion of domestic partnership can’t be restricted only to gay couples. My in-laws are currently using such an arrangement to provide my FIL heath benefits on her plan. They are not legally married.
How they set up their homelife is their business, and since their kids (from previous marriages) are grown, they truly aren’t hurting anybody. People are free to come up with any kind of household they feel like, as far as I care. Anyone could do a search on my previous posts on this subject in different threads, and I guarantee that you’ll not find hatred toward anybody in my position.
I do feel strongly, however, that arrangements of this nature work against traditional marriage. It gives people options, true, but these options are not necessarily in the best interests of children in the relationship. Already many parents feel their needs are best served by cohabitation, with children often the victims of the impermanence of many of these relationships.
Heterosexuals have terribly weakened the family structure, with the help of misguided government programs. I merely want to see this trend slowed, and radical changes in the definition of marriage aren’t the way to do this.
As far as I can tell, this argument boils down to, “I believe the family has been weakened by people who don’t seek marriage as a means of avoiding obligations, so therefore I believe that some people who wish to form families and undertake the obligations involved should be prevented from doing so.”
You cannot dictate how people should live, so you cannot dictate how people should marry. Demanding “traditional marriages” from the masses is ludicrous.
Should we also amend the constitution to demand people have 2.3 children, a dog and a white picket fence?
Or should we amend the constitution to outlaw interracial and interfaith marriages? Those aren’t “traditional.”
Should we amend the constitution to outlaw reality shows where the general public get’s to choose who marries who?
Aren’t we just talking about semantics here? If a DP comes with all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, then what difference does it make if a hetero couple chooses DP over marriage? They can still have a religious ceremony if they want.
While I can see your viewpoint that the nuclear-family structure has been weakened, I don’t agree that misguided government programs are the cause. There are plenty of government programs in place that seek to strenghten nuclear family structures. These include SSA and VA spousal and dependent benefits, tax deductions for children, and the ability to move certain amounts of income tax-free between spouses. Furthermore, the Welfare Reform Act contains provisions designed to encourage marriage, and one’s maximum income-level cut-off for HUD loans goes up if one is married. Overall, I’d say government’s role in this has been a wash.
