President Bush's Remarks on Amending the Constitution

[Brown]

Read a transcript of the President's remarks on the CNN web site (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.transcript/index.html).

I have read the remarks. Twice. And there is something that I find very troubling: I don't see the need. I don't see the need to take the drastic step of amending the United States Constitution.And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.This is most certainly not a need that supports a constitutional amendment. First, the prospect of unfavorable court decisions and the fear of litigation are not sound bases for amendment. The feared court decisions might never be issued, and when you have so many lawyers in one country, the prospect of litigation is always present. There are plenty of remedies in place to deal with local officials who act illegally. Assuming that "defiant local officials" constitute a problem, no constitutional amendment is necessary to deal with that problem.

Second, the President's notion of "uncertainty" implies that there might not ever be a need. And besides, uncertainty is just as omnipresent as the fear of litigation.

How many other constitutional amendments do you suppose were premised upon fear of bad court decisions or fear of litigation or fear of uncertainty?After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. Here's the villian: the faceless, ignorant, evil, "activist" courts. In another thread, we've discussed this term "activist" at length. I suspect that the President of the United States does not know what an "activist court" is. The President later remarked that the Defense of Marriage Act might "itself be struck down by activist courts." If an "activist court" is one that strikes down unconstitutional laws, then the President seems to be foolishly opposed to the notion of judicial review established in Marbury vs. Madison.If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.Wow, "serious consequences." And what might those consequences be? Well, the President was a little fuzzy on that point.

Where is the need? Why must marriage be "defended?" How would undefended marriage affect the rights of any men and women currently married? Is there any married couple that would lose rights or benefits? The President identified no such harms. There is nothing in the President's speech that suggests that the purpose of the amendment would be to "defend" anyone.

Basically, this proposed constitutional amendment seems to be poorly thought out and exceptionally foolish. I expect we'll be hearing from constitutional scholars who will question the wisdom associated the justifications for such an amendment.

[Hexxenhammer]

In my opinion, the Constitution should only be changed to limit what the government can do to it's citizens, not limit what it's citizens can do. Just like prohibition, this amendment is meant to stop or prevent some Americans from doing things that some other Americans don't like. And like prohibition, in a few years, a decade at most, it would be overturned and our kids will look back and wonder who came up with that stupid idea.

[Ipecac]

Good points, all.

I really hope the sensible people of this country rise up to stop this bigoted madness.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
In my opinion, the Constitution should only be changed to limit what the government can do to it's citizens, not limit what it's citizens can do.

I disagree. The 13th amendment banning citizens from owning slaves was necessary and good.

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Just like prohibition, this amendment is meant to stop or prevent some Americans from doing things that some other Americans don't like. And like prohibition, in a few years, a decade at most, it would be overturned and our kids will look back and wonder who came up with that stupid idea.

Unlike prohibition (but very much like the ERA or the flag burning amendment) this amendment will not pass.

[Bottle or the Gun]

There is also talk about ammending the constitution to let foreign-born naturalized citizens become President (Arnold come to mind). That's dangerous...corrupt politicians are bad enough, but is it unreasonable to think a foreign power would plant agents in the US who's goal is to become president?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
There is also talk about ammending the constitution to let foreign-born naturalized citizens become President (Arnold come to mind). That's dangerous...corrupt politicians are bad enough, but is it unreasonable to think a foreign power would plant agents in the US who's goal is to become president?

Do you really think they could be worse than you domestic ones? ;)

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I disagree. The 13th amendment banning citizens from owning slaves was necessary and good.I realized that as soon as I posted it. Change that to "in general" the constitution should only be changed...blah blah...

Personally, I don't foresee any good reason at all to change the constitution, ever.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
There is also talk about ammending the constitution to let foreign-born naturalized citizens become President (Arnold come to mind). That's dangerous...corrupt politicians are bad enough, but is it unreasonable to think a foreign power would plant agents in the US who's goal is to become president?

The proposed amendment as I understand it would require that the person be a citizen for 20 years before becoming president, so yeah, it's pretty unreasonable.

MattJ

[Brown]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Unlike prohibition (but very much like the ERA or the flag burning amendment) this amendment will not pass. I'm not so optimistic at this stage. President Bush said: "Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage." The reference to "38 states" was undoubtedly intentional. My guess is that he's betting that every state that had passed a "defense of marriage law" will ratify the amendment. And if the matter gets sent to the states and 38 states ratify it, then it becomes a part of the Constitution.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Brown
I suspect that the President of the United States does not know what an "activist court" is.Probably not. But it doesn't prevent him and others from exerting themselves in the hopes of creating a new (and useful for their ongoing purposes) synonym for the term. And the more sinister that term's overtones the better.

[Hexxenhammer]

I'm reminded of the School House Rock parody on the Simpsons:

Kid: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
Amendment: I'm not garbage.

(starts singing)

I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.

There's a lot of flag-burners,
Who have got too much freedom,
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat'em.

'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

(spoken)
Kid: But why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional.
But if we changed the Constitution...
Kid: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
Kid: What if people say you're not good enough to be in the
Constitution?

(sings)

Amendment: Then I'll crush all opposition to me,
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay.
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.

(spoken)
Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya!
You're in the US Constitution!
Amendment: Oh yeah! C'mon boys! (other laws run up the capitol steps shouting "yeehaw!" and firing pistols into the air.)

[Brown]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Personally, I don't foresee any good reason at all to change the constitution, ever. I do foresee that situations can arise that justify changing the Constitution. But in my view, the reasons offered by President Bush are crappy reasons.

Shoot, there are literally thousands of issues upon which there is uncertainty, and these issues affect people one hell of a lot more than same-sex marriage does. There are uncertainties about laws pertaining to employment, taxes, motor vehicles, zoning, crime.... But nobody proposes a constitutional amendment to eliminate those uncertainties. Why? Because the system in place is designed to handle them! Sooner or later, things get sorted out.

By the way, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why the legal institution of "marriage" might be limited to couples of opposite sex. One can be opposed to same-sex unions and also be opposed to amending the constitution based upon such weak grounds. In other words, one can be opposed to this amendment and still not support same-sex unions. Regrettably, I suspect many people will not make this very important distinction.

[specious_reasons]

"It's true, some cartoons DO cause violence!"

I agree with you Brown. There's no need for this amendment. I remember hearing the wording of the proposed amendment, and I didn't like it either. It just seems like an unfit subject for the Constitution to address.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Personally, I don't foresee any good reason at all to change the constitution, ever.

I see a few.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Brown
I'm not so optimistic at this stage. President Bush said: "Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage." The reference to "38 states" was undoubtedly intentional. My guess is that he's betting that every state that had passed a "defense of marriage law" will ratify the amendment. And if the matter gets sent to the states and 38 states ratify it, then it becomes a part of the Constitution.

I would have to see the wording of the amendment before I can condemn it. Bush did mention that part of the amendment, would assure that states could pass laws concerning individual rights, which would have to be respected by other states. That sound like a minimal nod to civil unions.

[Tony]

Interestingly enough, I was listening to the radio the other day and some conservative guy had called in and said he was against the amendment because, although it defined marraige as between and man and a woman, it made room for "civil unions" for gays. Anyone know anything about that?

[renata]

Read this, from the transcript

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

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.



Something I don't understand. If the point is to defend marriage, shouldn't there be an amendment against adultery and divorce first? I would think they threaten marriage more than some gay people getting married....

(Side note- it actually is not a union of a man and a woman, Mr. President. In the Bible and many cultures, polygamy was rampant...so, I suppose you want to say a union of a man and many women)

[Brown]

Originally posted by SRW
I would have to see the wording of the amendment before I can condemn it. Bush did mention that part of the amendment, would assure that states could pass laws concerning individual rights, which would have to be respected by other states. That sound like a minimal nod to civil unions. Here is the wording currently being bandied about. It seems unlikely that this will be the final wording that will be put to a vote.FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. In this story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_14), the reporter offers the following: "Bush's comment that the states should be left free to define 'legal arrangements other than marriage' indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws."

[VicDaring]

Bush is overplaying his hand here.

Right now, polls show a lot of people uncomfortable with gay marriage. But when pushed to the wall, the American people will grow far more uncomfortable with denying rights to a certain group of people.

This is gonna blow up in his face. You read it here.

[Brown]

Originally posted by renata
Something I don't understand. If the point is to defend marriage, shouldn't there be an amendment against adultery and divorce first? I would think they threaten marriage more than some gay people getting married....

(Side note- it actually is not a union of a man and a woman, Mr. President. In the Bible and many cultures, polygamy was rampant...so, I suppose you want to say a union of a man and many women) I noticed this as well. "Defense of marriage" to me brings up images of infidelity and divorce.

Also, you are right that the Bible (and other sacred books) support polygamy and other forms of marriage that are not allowed in the USA. Even more disturbing was the notion that religious folks treated marriage as a property concern, with the husband effectively owning and having all legal right of control over the wife. Only recently has this notion subsided, and only recently have women obtained legal rights equal to those of men in many respects.

And did anyone else notice that President Bush did not end his speech with "God Bless America"? This was certainly deliberate, and in a way, dishonest. In secular matters, Bush has invoked the name of God at the conclusion of his addresses. But here, in what is blatantly a move spurred on by organized religion, he omits his favorite benediction as if to dishonestly suggest that the issue is really a secular one.

[Brown]

Originally posted by VicDaring
This is gonna blow up in his face. You read it here. The real question is: will it blow up in his face before election day?

Right now, you can bet that John Kerry and his staff are puzzling over how to respond to this bone-headed plan without sounding like "queer-lovers." Bush, a man who ran four years ago as a "uniter, not a divider," has lobbed out the biggest wedge issue of them all.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
In my opinion, the Constitution should [in general] be changed to limit what the government can do to it's citizens, not limit what it's citizens can do. The President agrees in principle, but when it comes right down to it, he disagrees. Preventing redefinition of a social institution (whatever that means) is more important than freedom:America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tony
Interestingly enough, I was listening to the radio the other day and some conservative guy had called in and said he was against the amendment because, although it defined marraige as between and man and a woman, it made room for "civil unions" for gays. Anyone know anything about that?

This might be answered in other posts to this thread, but, yes, the amendment that's backed by Bush does not prevent other potential legal entities like civil unions from being created.

IIRC, there were other proposed amendments that made additional restrictions, but I don't think they have as much general support.

[Samus]

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Earlier, he mentioned that the idea of marriage transcends culture and religion, which is true. What he failed to mention was that some cultures encourage polygamy, marrying young teenage girls, and a very subservient role for the woman. Should those "definitions" also be preserved, or only the one he likes best?

I would suggest that the issue of marriage is one that should be settled in legislatures and by elected officials and the people, but not by Constitutional amendments. The courts, elected officials, and citizens all have a vested interest in how a family is defined in our society, and should not sit idly by and watch something like this get codified in the Constitution without lengthy and hearty debate by all players concerned. This is not a law, this is an amendment, and a short-sighted one at that.

One should not use sectarian beliefs as reasoning to alter a secular document. Actual evidence should be prepared that demonstrates a marked effect on society, specifically, if same-sex marriages result in a breakdown of family structure and strength. I would argue that it doesn't, at least, it doesn't any more than adultery, divorce, and abusive relationships already do. There is no compelling state interest to proscribe homosexual marriage, at least none that I could find.

Thoughts?

[Brown]

There is at least one bright spot in the President's speech: a call for civility.We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency. One might argue that this is spoken like a man who thinks he's got the votes to get his way, and if the tide should turn, he will no longer remain kind and decent.

Even so, the issue is a highly volatile one, and I support the notion that debate from all sides should be conducted in a civil tone. Shouts of Bible verses from one group and shouts of "Bigot!" from another group are not examples of intelligent, respectful or productive debate.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by VicDaring

This is gonna blow up in his face. You read it here.

I don’t think the effort to push this amendment will go anywhere. I think it will be like the flag amendment that usually turns up in election years. It is a political issue created to avoid dealing with real problems.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The proposed amendment as I understand it would require that the person be a citizen for 20 years before becoming president, so yeah, it's pretty unreasonable.

MattJ

Short-sighted video game mentality, there. It is certainly not unreasonable. Governments plan their moves over decades, not months. 20 years having a policy of infiltration in place is nothing to a country. How long have some KKK members or compromised individuals remained in government right now, working their way up the chain? I see another facet of espionage with scores of sleeper agents throughout the government and in politics. As I said, it is bad enough that politicians are already hopelessly compromised by $$$ and religion.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
If an "activist court" is one that strikes down unconstitutional laws, then the President seems to be foolishly opposed to the notion of judicial review established in Marbury vs. Madison.

Marbury vs. Madison is not an example of an activist court. Would that the courts stayed within the lines of Marbury vs. Madison, and things would be all right.

An activist court is one that makes law, not interprets it.

[renata]

Originally posted by Brown
There is at least one bright spot in the President's speech: a call for civility.One might argue that this is spoken like a man who thinks he's got the votes to get his way, and if the tide should turn, he will no longer remain kind and decent.

Even so, the issue is a highly volatile one, and I support the notion that debate from all sides should be conducted in a civil tone. Shouts of Bible verses from one group and shouts of "Bigot!" from another group are not examples of intelligent, respectful or productive debate.

Funny, I was about to comment on my first impression of great hypocrisy of that very statement. This condescention, this bait and switch, I feared was at the heart of "compassionate conservative" image Bush likes to project. Make unpalatable decisions sound good by couching them in can't we all get along speak. I doubt gay couples will be reassured by this...I imagine past politicians who denied rights to women, to minorities in the also telling them- we will take away your rights, we will not grant you your rights, but please, women, blacks, Jews- be civil about it! Don't make such a fuss!

Now that I read your comments I am revising my initial starkly negative impression

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Bush is overplaying his hand here.

Right now, polls show a lot of people uncomfortable with gay marriage. But when pushed to the wall, the American people will grow far more uncomfortable with denying rights to a certain group of people.

This is gonna blow up in his face. You read it here.

I don't think it will blow up in his face. I just think it will die a quiet death.

Bill O'Reilly last week expressed confusion over the fact that polls show the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, and that a majority also opposes a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Fortunately, his guest (I forget who) explained that we don't tinker with the Constitution lightly.

I am one who opposes gay marriage. I also oppose amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

I don't think marriage is a "right" being denied.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Earlier, he mentioned that the idea of marriage transcends culture and religion, which is true. What he failed to mention was that some cultures encourage polygamy, marrying young teenage girls, and a very subservient role for the woman. Should those "definitions" also be preserved, or only the one he likes best?


Marriage between a man and a woman traditional for this country, what others cultures do or not do should not be a criteria for U.S. laws.

Originally posted by Commander Cool


I would suggest that the issue of marriage is one that should be settled in legislatures and by elected officials and the people, but not by Constitutional amendments. The courts, elected officials, and citizens all have a vested interest in how a family is defined in our society, and should not sit idly by and watch something like this get codified in the Constitution without lengthy and hearty debate by all players concerned. This is not a law, this is an amendment, and a short-sighted one at that.


What happens when state A has marriage laws which conflict with marriage laws in state B. every-time a couple moves from state A to state B, you end up with litigation. Great for lawyers bad for everyone else.

Also you do not have a constitutional amendment, without a great deal of debate. I personally would rather see a nation wide debate on the subject that a city to city state to state battle.


Originally posted by Commander Cool



One should not use sectarian beliefs as reasoning to alter a secular document. Actual evidence should be prepared that demonstrates a marked effect on society, specifically, if same-sex marriages result in a breakdown of family structure and strength. I would argue that it doesn't, at least, it doesn't any more than adultery, divorce, and abusive relationships already do. There is no compelling state interest to proscribe homosexual marriage, at least none that I could find.

Thoughts?

I agree, but the argument against gay "Marriage" goes away when you call it a civil union. Let the religious keep the word, but grant the same rights under a different term. What is more important calling it a Marriage or getting the equal treatment?

[Luke T.]

Marriage isn't a "right." It is a social norm.

The majority in some countries decided polygamy was ok. The majority here decided polygamy was not ok. They have also decided that marriage is for a man and a woman only. Not between man and beast, or man and man, or man and women.

[shanek]

Y'know, I might be willing to hear what Bush has to say about the Constitution if there were even the slightest indication that he cared the first thing for it. As it is, he's never met an unconstitutional law he didn't like. So, screw him. I'm not even going to read his trash.

Here's really the only important thing: If a gay or lesbain couple decides to get married, how does it affect me or my kids? Answer: it doesn't.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's really the only important thing: If a gay or lesbain couple decides to get married, how does it affect me or my kids? Answer: it doesn't.

You will have to pay more taxes as they horn in on your good deal. :D :D

[corplinx]

Bush is wrong on this issue. Its not the first or last time he wll be wrong.

Now we get into the two camps who will talk about this.

A. the kooks

These types believe Bush is a habitual liar and either totally inept or a brutal mastermind. They believe he takes his orders from Enron and Halliburton. They can also be called "cain-anites" or the "jj-brigade". This will be further proof of their Bush theocracy conspiracy and that the Ashcroft gestapo will start persecuting gays.

B. apologetics

Everything the administratation does isn't nearly as bad as the way Clinton did it. I call these the "Limburgers" or the "Hanninites". They will talk about protecting civilization and the defense of marriage act.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by renata
Something I don't understand. If the point is to defend marriage, shouldn't there be an amendment against adultery and divorce first? I would think they threaten marriage more than some gay people getting married...Please. This topic has no room for rationality. I'll thank you to cease and desist immediately.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Not between man and beast, or man and man, or man and women.-Luke T.





Then what is marriage between?

[Tony]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

Then what is marriage between?

Man and television remote.

[Silicon]

I wonder what this amendment will do to people who aren't man or woman?




They exist, you know. One teste, one ovary. Born that way.


Human sexuality isn't as binary as people seem to think it is when they pass exclusionary laws.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Not between man and beast, or man and man, or man and women.-Luke T.





Then what is marriage between?

A man and a woman. Note that I pluralized "women" in what it is not.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by renata
Something I don't understand. If the point is to defend marriage, shouldn't there be an amendment against adultery and divorce first? I would think they threaten marriage more than some gay people getting married....



That is where society blew it. Allowed divorce and adultery to run away. Hey, I'm guilty. I'm on my third marriage. :(

The gay community is going to blow it, too. They are going to get some serious backlash if they don't back off the marriage issue. Why do you think a Constitutional amendment is even being proposed right now?

[shanek]

I heard on the radio earlier today a comment to the effect that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children, and this (through some long and quite broken chain of argument that I wasn't quite able to comprehend) will make your taxes and your insurance premiums go up and cause all sorts of other assorted horribleness.

If that's the case, then why are sterile couples allowed to marry?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Silicon
I wonder what this amendment will do to people who aren't man or woman?
They exist, you know. One teste, one ovary. Born that way.

Human sexuality isn't as binary as people seem to think it is when they pass exclusionary laws. They need to marry one another. Every marriage must include 2 ovaries and 2 testicles. Women may marry 2 men as long as each only has one ball. Men with no testicles and women with no ovaries may not marry.

[SRW]

What this debate needs is a new term, Marriage has to much emotional and religious baggage. Civil Unions just is not very romantic or appealing. Why not have a Gaying ceremony, defined as the union between people of opposite genders. A couple could get a gaying license that gives them the same rights and privileges as a marriage license and would be valid in all states and by the Federal governments.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
I heard on the radio earlier today a comment to the effect that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children, and this (through some long and quite broken chain of argument that I wasn't quite able to comprehend) will make your taxes and your insurance premiums go up and cause all sorts of other assorted horribleness.

If that's the case, then why are sterile couples allowed to marry?

Those married heterosexual couples who cannot have kids together are a small percentage. The gay couples who cannot have kids together is 100%.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Marbury vs. Madison is not an example of an activist court. Would that the courts stayed within the lines of Marbury vs. Madison, and things would be all right.

An activist court is one that makes law, not interprets it. I think a good case can be made that you can't get any more "activist" than Marbury. The notion of judicial review established in Marbury was truly a cornerstone in American jurisprudence, but prior to Marbury, this cornerstone was by no means established. Today, we almost take judicial review for granted, but even today that single case is revered in federal jurisprudence above all others. The man with the largest statue in the U.S. Supreme Court building is the man who wrote the Marbury opinion, Justice John Marshall.

As for the proposed definition of what makes a court "activist," I have argued in another thread that that definition is meaningless. But a meaningful definition of "activist" is not really the subject of the current thread. Regardless of how the President defines the word, he is using "activist courts" as his whipping boy, blaming them for taking past (and future!) steps which make this amendment necessary. A constitutional amendment ought not be premised upon such a lame justification.

[Tony]

Originally posted by SRW
What this debate needs is a new term, Marriage has to much emotional and religious baggage. Civil Unions just is not very romantic or appealing. Why not have a Gaying ceremony, defined as the union between people of opposite genders. A couple could get a gaying license that gives them the same rights and privileges as a marriage license and would be valid in all states and by the Federal governments.

I could see the "marriage" proposal now:


"Bob, I love you, will you gay me?"

"Ohh Steve, I'd love to be gayed to you."


:D

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Those married heterosexual couples who cannot have kids together are a small percentage. The gay couples who cannot have kids together is 100%. And taken as total #'s probably much less than the number of straight married couples who can't or just don't want to have childeren. Don't see what kids have to do with marriage since many married people don't have them, and many single people certainly do.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
I think a good case can be made that you can't get any more "activist" than Marbury. The notion of judicial review established in Marbury was truly a cornerstone in American jurisprudence, but prior to Marbury, this cornerstone was by no means established. Today, we almost take judicial review for granted, but even today that single case is revered in federal jurisprudence above all others. The man with the largest statue in the U.S. Supreme Court building is the man who wrote the Marbury opinion, Justice John Marshall.

Yeah, we are off topic, but I think the significance of Marbury was that it established the Federal government as having sovereignty over the States.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Yeah, we are off topic, but I think the significance of Marbury was that it established the Federal government as having sovereignty over the States. I think you might have Marbury confused with another case.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
And taken as total #'s probably much less than the number of straight married couples who can't or just don't want to have childeren. Don't see what kids have to do with marriage since many married people don't have them, and many single people certainly do.

The whole idea of marriage was to encourage the people to "go forth and multiply" and to provide a stable environment for the kids.

It's all about the kids. Just ask someone who is opposed to gay marriage what they think about gays raising kids, then you'll see.

As for single people raising kids, that is where the hetero society blew it, as I said earlier.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
I think you might have Marbury confused with another case.

I don't think so, but I'll check. :)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
And taken as total #'s probably much less than the number of straight married couples who can't or just don't want to have children. Don't see what kids have to do with marriage since many married people don't have them, and many single people certainly do.

Don't you get it? The people behind this amendment live in a dream-fairyland where:

Unmarried people don't have sex.
Married people only have sex with their spouse.
Only straight people have children.
Bisexual people don't exist.
All married couples have children.
Married people stay married for life, and both die at the exact same time.
Nobody adopts.


There. Have I set up every circumstance that would make sure that gays never actually have any families at all, so don't need to build a household to raise children in?

[Luke T.]

Brown, you are right. I was thinking of another case. McCulloch Vs. Maryland. My bad.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon


Don't you get it? The people behind this amendment live in a dream-fairyland where:

Unmarried people don't have sex.
Married people only have sex with their spouse.
Only straight people have children.
Bisexual people don't exist.
All married couples have children.
Married people stay married for life, and both die at the exact same time.
Nobody adopts.


There. Have I set up every circumstance that would make sure that gays never actually have any families at all, so don't need to build a household to raise children in?

There is an easier, and less complicated, way to understand the position of those who oppose gay marriage: "Homosexuality is wrong." Now is that so hard to understand? I'm not asking you to agree with that position, just understand that's what it is. No need to create fantasies that fit your world view. The reality is that people consider homosexuality to be wrong. Simple as that.

[Hexxenhammer]

One thing that's kind of forgotten about in this debate is this. It's not like gay people haven't been getting married for years. I went to a lesbian wedding a couple of years ago. It's not like gay people aren't already doing all the things that straight married people already do. And whatever happens, they will keep on doing. It's the nature of our current society for two people to get together and make a home and maybe family together. Gay people already do this. Not giving them the benefits that straight people get for doing the same things is just blatant discrimination.

I remember in the eighties when I was growing up there were always news stories about the changing nature of the family. Divorce, re-marriage, adoption, working mothers, single parents etc, all contributed to the downfall of the nuclear family. Everyone wailed and moaned that morals were disintegrating, families were under attack, blah blah...and look, we made it through that just fine. Weird family arrangements are more the rule than the exception. This whole arguement is just an extention of that. People finally realized that a family can be a lot more than just a man, a woman, and 2 1/2 kids. People will (hopefully) come to grips with marriage can be something different than just a man and a woman.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Don't see what kids have to do with marriage since many married people don't have them, and many single people certainly do. Strictly speaking, it seems that kids and marriage ought to be severable issues. But there are those who perceive a sinister (gasp!) "gay rights agenda" in which children will be brought up in gay homes, thinking that same-sex living arrangments are (double gasp!) "normal." Who know, maybe even growing up in a gay household can turn the poor kid gay (which may also be an item on the "gay rights agenda").

Now I haven't seen this "gay rights agenda" (and I haven't seen the "liberal media agenda," either, and I've actually asked for a copy of it!), but this "agenda" is sure to rear its head in this debate: "First they want the right to marry, then they want the right to rear kids!" Horrors!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


There is an easier, and less complicated, way to understand the position of those who oppose gay marriage: "Homosexuality is wrong." Now is that so hard to understand? I'm not asking you to agree with that position, just understand that's what it is. No need to create fantasies that fit your world view. The reality is that people consider homosexuality to be wrong. Simple as that.

I understand it, but is that enough for a constitutional amendment?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The reality is that people consider homosexuality to be wrong. Simple as that.

Argument by assertion.

"It's wrong because it's wrong" doesn't work.


Show harm. I've shown the harm to gay couples, please show the harm to straights.

If you say it harms children, please show it, because the medical community and the psychological community haven't shown that it does.

From my own family, I can see that it doesn't.

Put 2 kids in a room, in front of religious people, psychologists, doctors, and have them figure out which one was raised by gays and which one was raised by straights. If they can tell, I'd give them the million dollars.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Men with no testicles and women with no ovaries may not marry.

Men with no testicles may not marry? Well, at least that'll lower the number of Democrats in the world...

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The whole idea of marriage was to encourage the people to "go forth and multiply" and to provide a stable environment for the kids.

It's all about the kids. Just ask someone who is opposed to gay marriage what they think about gays raising kids, then you'll see.

As for single people raising kids, that is where the hetero society blew it, as I said earlier. Gay people already raise kids. I doubt gay people have been waiting around to get married before they have kids. Gay marriage may lead to a very slight increase in the number of gays with kids, but only slight. Many gay people raising kids are probably also married to someone of the opposite sex. Is this a better circumstance? Where the marriage is a sham? I had a cousin (female) marry a gay guy who was in denial. Thank jebus they didn't have kids. Now that they're divorced and he's out, I think if they wanted they should have kids.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Cleon


Men with no testicles may not marry? Well, at least that'll lower the number of Democrats in the world... Badda bing.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon


Argument by assertion.

"It's wrong because it's wrong" doesn't work.


Show harm. I've shown the harm to gay couples, please show the harm to straights.



You know, I see people making mental constructs of their opponents on here all the time, and then proceed to make arguments toward the opposition based on those constructs. E.g. right-wingers are liars, woo-woos are unintelligent. It is no small wonder the arguments which proceed from these constructs fall on their face.

If you are going to make an argument, you must first have an accurate picture of your opposition. The simple truth is that people opposed to gay marriage believe that homosexuality is wrong. You can proclaim "argument from assertion" and point out whatever other logical fallacies you think they hold, all the live long day, and you will get nowhere. It may be entertaining, but it will not bring about any change or progress.

These same people believe having sex with kids or animals or corpses is also wrong. No harm can be shown to "straights" in these cases, either, with the exception of sex with kids. So forget about your approach. Try another one.

The fact is that it is too late. The gay community has pushed too hard already and will now experience some backlash. San Francisco f**ked up, big time. Now we are having a conversation about a Constitutional amendment. That's what happens when you have the wrong mental construct of your opponents.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tony


I could see the "marriage" proposal now:


"Bob, I love you, will you gay me?"

"Ohh Steve, I'd love to be gayed to you."


:D

Well the term needs work my first thought was to name it
after a Gay activist, but the only one I could think of was
Harvey Milk.

Bob I love you will you Milk me? ...

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
[B]


These same people believe having sex with kids or animals or corpses is also wrong. No harm can be shown to "straights" in these cases, either, with the exception of sex with kids. So forget about your approach. Try another one.
/B]

The fact that you even compare my daughter's grandmother with pedophiles, beastiality and necrophelia tells me I have pictured you quite accurately.

Strike that. I've given you a larger benefit of the doubt than you deserve.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Luke T.
That is where society blew it. Allowed divorce and adultery to run away. Hey, I'm guilty. I'm on my third marriage. :(


So "society" should have not allowed you to get two divorces? Why the heck not? If that's what you and your wife want to do, why should the rest of us have the right to stop it?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon


The fact that you even compare my daughter's grandmother with pedophiles, beastiality and necrophelia tells me I have pictured you quite accurately.

Strike that. I've given you a larger benefit of the doubt than you deserve.

All I did was turn your argument back on you to show you how ineffective it is. My mental construct of you was that you are also opposed to sex with kids, animals and corpses. Apply your argument "show the harm" to it. The only one you can is the taboo against sex with kids. Should I build a construct of you that since there is "no harm" to having sex with corpses or animals, that you are okay with it? You wouldn't be true to yourself if you weren't.

I am suggesting you try a different approach. And speaking of your opponents as living in a fantasy land where single people don't have sex, when you know they dont' actually believe that, is condescending, and will also cause you to fall on your face.

edited to add: Silicon, I think you do indeed have the wrong idea about me. I know that some opponents to gay marriage make some pretty hateful and stupid arguments. If you think I'm being harsh to you, you should have heard me on the phone with my stepmother a couple days ago! I was shocked at the crap she was spouting. I thought I knew my parents!

I am not meaning to be harsh to you. Not at all. I often speak on here how the approach skeptics take to many things just isn't working. I include myself in those criticisms.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ipecac


So "society" should have not allowed you to get two divorces? Why the heck not? If that's what you and your wife want to do, why should the rest of us have the right to stop it?

Because divorce wreaks havoc. Just ask my son. Hell, ask me, I'm also a child whose parents divorced. Don't even get me started.

If marriage were harder to get out of, people would enter into it more carefully.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Silicon
Show harm. I've shown the harm to gay couples, please show the harm to straights.

Citizen Smash (http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002676.html#002676) shows harm.


;)

[Brown]

Originally posted by Silicon
If you say it harms children, please show it, because the medical community and the psychological community haven't shown that it does.I can't blame the President for skipping over the "show it" part, because he wouldn't want his speech to get mired down. Presumably he can find a study or two to support his assertion:Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.It's a great quote, but upon closer analysis, it really doesn't say much. On the one hand, some families that have a committed husband and wife are pretty screwed up, and some of them don't promote the welfare of children very well at all. On the other hand, one wonders whether the quote would be any less true if the words "two loving partners" were substituted for the words "a husband and wife."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
On the other hand, one wonders whether the quote would be any less true if the words "two loving partners" were substituted for the words "a husband and wife."

If I were a member of the activist gay community, I wouldn't even dare bring that up right now. They could end up losing the whole bag of marbles and having their parenthood taken away.

The idea of gay marriage is reprehensible enough for some people. The idea of gay people raising children? Don't even go there!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Those married heterosexual couples who cannot have kids together are a small percentage. The gay couples who cannot have kids together is 100%.

Really? I would have thought that the rate of sterile couples that couldn't have kids would, by definition, be 100% as well.

[Silicon]

Corpses: Defiles the memory of loved ones without their consent. Emotionally harms survivors.


Animals: Causes animal diseases to jump more easily to humans. Possibly cruel to animals.


Kids: That you even used that, and went there, says more about you than it does about my argument.


What part of "Two consenting adults" don't you understand?

All of my arguments can be qualified by the phrase "when practiced by two consenting adult human beings".


We've said before that the problem with the slippery slope argument is that we aren't talking about those issues. The question before the nation is gay marriage, not legalizing pedophelia, necrophelia, beastiality, or anything else. Please ban necrophelia, be my guest. You won't have anyone marching against you on that one. You won't EVER see a national political movement on that one. You won't ever see America divided equally on both sides of that issue. Nobody wants it.

The fact that people bring it up, and continue to bring it up, says they can't come up with any overwhelming reason (other than assertion or religion) that equality shouldn't be extended to gay couples.

Here's your slippery slope:

"If we allow freedom of religion, THEN we'd have to allow ANY religion, even SATANISTS. Satanists drink the blood of babys! You can't stop them then, since it's their religion..... Then someone will claim that God told them to start a religion based on mass murder! We won't be able to stop it, once the PANDORA'S BOX of freedom of religion is opened. Better off we just make everyone be muslims!"


Slippery slope forever.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The idea of gay marriage is reprehensible enough for some people. The idea of gay people raising children? Don't even go there!

Again proof of the magical fairieland.

Guess what, gay people have been raising children since time began.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Because divorce wreaks havoc. Just ask my son. Hell, ask me, I'm also a child whose parents divorced. Don't even get me started.

If marriage were harder to get out of, people would enter into it more carefully.

No question that divorce wreaks havoc. However, forcing two people who are miserable and making life miserable for each other and their family to stay together is not the answer.

I doubt your second conclusion. People don't usually see the big picture.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Silicon




Put 2 kids in a room, in front of religious people, psychologists, doctors, and have them figure out which one was raised by gays and which one was raised by straights. If they can tell, I'd give them the million dollars. I can do it, I can do it!! The kids raised by gay people will be more tolerant, and less prone to ignorant bigotry!

I'll take that million in small bills, please.;)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon


Again proof of the magical fairieland.

Guess what, gay people have been raising children since time began.

Yep. Doesn't make it right.

Here's another reality. The majority don't want gay marriage or gays to be raising kids. Push the majority hard enough with the wrong approach and you will get an even worse result.

Let's take a step back and try to be as objective as possible. I will explain what I mean, but first I am going to get very, very subjective.

I don't have a firm stand on homosexuality or gay marriage. I really don't. I used to. I hated gays. Hated. Not queasy. Not uneasy. Hated.

There were three things which brought about the process of softening me up.

First, my brother, an IV drug abuser, got AIDS in the late 80s and died in 1993. This entailed a lot of hospital stays. Every bit of leave I took from the Navy during this period was spent visiting him during his hospital visits. Well, I couldn't help noticing that most of the patients in the AIDS ward were gay men. It was the first time I had to face the reality that gay men were human beings. And under the worst possible circumstances, but it was the only thing that was going to get through to me the way I was.

When a loved one has an incurable disease, you will clutch at anything which holds promise. It was this that caused us to take my brother to Atlanta to see a doctor who was working on a cure that turned out to be useless. But in the doc's waiting room, I saw a gay couple, one of whom was in the very last stages of AIDS, and who were as desperate as we were. This is what some people call a "turning point in my life."

That gay man died not knowing he left behind one less heterosexual who hated gay men.

I still carried a lot of queasiness about gayness around with me. But a couple years ago came the next turning point in the form of a fellow who used to frequent this forum by the username RC. I've had gay friends before, but I always put some mental distance between myself and them. With RC, I feel like he is a friend I can totally open up to.

The third thing was a question somebody (I don't remember who) asked on here. The question wasn't even said to me. It might have even been said in the form of a statement, and it may have even been said by more than one person before I heard it. The basic idea, though, is what if a gay person can't help being gay in the same way a heterosexual person can't help being heterosexual? You are just born that way.

BooooiiiiiinnnnnnGggggggg!

I think some gay people were made that way by some act of cruelty. Perhaps a girl is raped at a young age, and her hostility leads her to lesbianism. But hey, maybe some people really are born gay. Not that there is a gay gene. Who knows.

Now perhaps somebody has noticed a commonality to the three things that caused this hostile heterosexual to rethink his position on gays.

Nonhostile approaches.

I haven't gotten to the objective thing I wanted to mention, but this post is long enough. But I do have more to say about all this.

[Silicon]

Thoughful points. And as far as realizations go, I'll let you in on the fact that I respond more to emotional arguments than non-emotional ones. So, the anecdotes you mention speak to me more than phrases like "It's just wrong."



I agree that nonhostile approaches are the best.

But then I think that getting married is a non-hostile approach. I think the religious people yelling at us from across the street, describing in detail the Hell that awaited us all had the hostile approach. (Okay, that was an exaggeration. The protesters were mostly silent, but their signs told us about hell.)

People were just getting married on valentines day. What could be more non-hostile than that, except for hiding away?

Name me one movement for equality that got equality by rolling over and becoming invisible, and you've got my vote.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Zero
I can do it, I can do it!! The kids raised by gay people will be more tolerant, and less prone to ignorant bigotry!

I'll take that million in small bills, please.;) I can do it easier! The kids raised by gay people will say "yes" in response to the question "Are your parents gay?"

And I won't even require small bills. :D

[Brown]

John Kerry's response to the President's speech, from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/campaign/24CND-KERR.html?hp) (registration required):The best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions... The issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the president of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed: jobs, health care and our leadership in the world, rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.Kerry said he would vote against an amendment such as the one supported by President Bush.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cecil
I can do it easier! The kids raised by gay people will say "yes" in response to the question "Are your parents gay?"

And I won't even require small bills. :D Do I get points for being first? I could use the cash...;)

[Bearguin]

Silicon. Am I right in reading into your post that you were one of the same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco?

If so (or if not) would you have been content with a civil union that carried all the same legal rights as a marriage but the term "married" was reserved for Religious ceremonies? I'm starting to think our governments (US and Canada) should ignore the term "married" and use a separate term that applies to all and leave "married" for the churches.

Whether it is called civil union or union or common law or whatever, from the government's point of view they are all the same, whether same sex or not.

Any comment?

[Silicon]

My mother in law was married in San Fransisco. I was there to attend the wedding.


As far as what I'm for, I have to say, as far as my family is concerned, they have been married for years, since their own ceremony before witness, family and God as they worship Him.

This was about rights, and also a certain recognition of equality. A "seperate but equal" civil union, if it provided the same rights, both state and Federal would surely be welcomed in our family, as it would eliminate the unequal status under the law. That would fall short of the "equal acceptance", or the moral and psychic recognition, and the human dignity and value that the word "marriage" itself affirms.

The word has power, and there is some equality in that power. How would you feel if you were given all the rights of a Citizen of the United States, but they witheld the word "citizen" from your status? Instead you were a "subject" of the United States.

Or you could have freedom of worship, just as long as you didn't call it a religion? Call it a "belief system", or fear offending the real religions?


If second-class status is all we can get for our family, that's what we'll take for now, and we'll keep fighting for equality.

I find it absolutely amazing... fascinating and thrilling that Republicans, REPUBLICANS are speaking openly about offering gay civil unions! How quickly the tide has turned, and the center position has moved.


Truthfully? I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

I think that any two adults should be able to form a civil union, and designate their own next of kin, and function as a single fiscal and legal unit, if they choose. And it should be as easy as a marriage license is today. That way, everyone would be equal, non-traditional families (like a mother and a mother-in-law raising a child with a dead father) would also be protected.

[Regnad Kcin]

Tom DeLay the voice of reason?!(Capitol Hill-AP) -- Many Congressional Republicans are advocating a go-slow approach to the President's call for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says he appreciates the President's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a Constitutional solution.

While some Republicans urged swift approval of the amendment, others say changing the Constitution should be a "last resort" on any issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed to fight any amendment. She says a Constitutional amendment has never been used to discriminate against a group of people, adding, "We must not start now."

California Congressman Bob Filner called the President's move a clear case of "wedge politics" designed to divide the country.Well, okay, not really, but closer than usual for Mr. D.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Silicon

This was about rights, and also a certain recognition of equality. A "seperate but equal" civil union, if it provided the same rights, both state and Federal would surely be welcomed in our family, as it would eliminate the unequal status under the law. That would fall short of the "equal acceptance", or the moral and psychic recognition, and the human dignity and value that the word "marriage" itself affirms.

Would you feel differently if the Govt ONLY recognized Civil Unions. If they completely stopped using the term "married" (on tax forms etc.). And someone who got Married would also have to apply for a Gov't sanctioned civil union license?



The word has power, and there is some equality in that power. How would you feel if you were given all the rights of a Citizen of the United States, but they witheld the word "citizen" from your status? Instead you were a "subject" of the United States.

I'd be pretty pissed if someone called me a "subject" of the US. But then again, I am Canadian ;)


Or you could have freedom of worship, just as long as you didn't call it a religion? Call it a "belief system", or fear offending the real religions?

This is kinda what I was wondering. I agree, the word has power and meaning. If our laws were to change (and Canada seems to be progressing differently than the US with Ontario and BC allowing same sex marriages), would I be offended to be "civil unionized" instead of married? I guess I would. But at the same time, I don't consider heterosexual couples who are "common law" to be "married" in the same way I am. I'm not saying that is the correct attitude, it is how I feel.


If second-class status is all we can get for our family, that's what we'll take for now, and we'll keep fighting for equality.

I understand that. And, in reality, I support this notion. I may not be 100% comfortable with it and still have my prejudices, but I am becoming far less comfortable with them. I still lean to the civil union (someone please come up with a better name) but I understand the second class comment.


Truthfully? I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Agreed. Like everything else they touch, they've screwed it up.

Anyway, thanks for you response.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


The word has power, and there is some equality in that power. How would you feel if you were given all the rights of a Citizen of the United States, but they witheld the word "citizen" from your status? Instead you were a "subject" of the United States.

Or you could have freedom of worship, just as long as you didn't call it a religion? Call it a "belief system", or fear offending the real religions?




You are correct the word has power, and as long a gay unions are called Marriages, most people will fight against them. The first step would be to quit being hung up on the name rather than attempting to change others concept of that word.

If you coincide that one battle you just may win the war.

And by the way most rank and file republicans are closer to the center than you may realize, and treating them like bigots simply because they are republicans will not help your cause.

[gnome]

How about transsexuals...? One state tried to anticipate this by phrasing their "marriage defense" law by definining "man" as someone that was born male.

Of course, it provided the interesting loophole that someone could get a sex change, and then marry someone that was APPARENTLY the same gender.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW


And by the way most rank and file republicans are closer to the center than you may realize,

And their voting record shows on this issue.

The problem is, I've been for gay rights longer than most people I know, and I have a long memory. So I remember how Reagan didn't mention the word AIDS until 1986, after 10,000 Americans had been killed by the disease, and over a million Americans were infected. In 1986 Reagan finally directed Surgeon General Koop to draft a report on AIDS, which established safe sex education as a national priority. In 1990 Reagan apologized for this neglect.

I remember the 1992 Republican National Convention, when Pat Buchanan fired up the troops for a culture war against "cross-dressing" liberals, "homosexual rights", and rallied against the "militant leader(s) of the homosexual rights movement". "Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom to choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women."

That was the way the Republican party chose to start the convention. By calling for a cultural war. Calling for prayer in school, standing against women serving in the military, standing against Roe v. Wade, and denouncing the amorality and "pro-homosexual agenda" of Clinton and Gore.

I remember these things. And I will remember the day George W. Bush stood up and said he wanted to change the Constitution of the United States of America. And he wanted to change it so that it will read, for now and all time, that my mother in law's marriage isn't a real marriage.

That, I will remember.


Listen, I don't treat anyone like a bigot. Unless they start the name calling, I don't rise to that. I'm quiet, and polite and I say "I repect you, and the right to your beliefs, but I disagree."

I bend over backwards for people's right to yell in the media how my loved ones are sick, or perverted, or sex fiends, or similar to child molesters. If they don't say "boo" to my face, I leave them alone, and I'm quiet and polite and walk on by. I've been doing that for 20 years now. Maybe it's working, because people seem to think that gays already have equal rights, and there's no more danger of loosing your job or whatever, for being gay in your time off work (there's still no protection from this).

Folks in my life, folks in my family, loved ones I hold dear are ALSO REPUBLICANS. They are on the other side of this issue. I don't call them names. I don't treat them like bigots. I don't treat them with anything less than respect and love.

So do I have divided loyalties? Perhaps. So how do I reconcile that?

Well, the gay relatives aren't trying to deny rights to the Republican relatives. That's how I choose sides on this one.

Martin Luther King said the worst impediment to equal rights were the moderates who kept saying "slow down, you're asking too much too fast, you'll alienate people". How shallow and paternalistic, these people who callously set the timetable for another man's liberation.

[renata]

Falwell weighs in on the issue, rather predictably. I wonder how much of a following the man really has- I saw this segment, and he looked like a lunatic, almost a caricature of right wing views. His opponent, on the other hand was composed and well spoken. Some snippets of his wisdom below.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/24/wbr.00.html


JERRY FALWELL, CHANCELLOR, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Because, in a civilized culture that is Judeo-Christian and in a country where most of the people are people of faith -- for example, I'm a Christian who takes the Bible seriously. I believe it's the word of God.
The scripture is very clear that a family -- a wedding, a marriage can only involve a man and a woman. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And throughout Old and New Testament teachings, it is all the same, 6,000 years of recorded history. And for -- you can't make laws to stop people committing adultery or living in a homosexual lifestyle.
But you certainly can't sanction it and bless it from the perspective of the state. We have a family to preserve. And a family is not a family unless it's a man and a woman legally married.
{snip}
....

FALWELL: .....So here we have now same-sex marriage. What's next, polygamy?

{snip}
FALWELL: Let me finish. Why not? And why not bestiality? Why not group relationships?

The fact is that, in this Judeo-Christian nation -- and a vast majority, 75 percent, oppose same-sex marriage -- in this Judeo- Christian land where we believe the Bible is the word of God, it is just unreasonable to expect that the people would sanction same-sex marriage.


{snip}
BLITZER: Do you support same-sex civil unions, Reverend Falwell?
FALWELL: No, I don't support them. I don't know how you could possibly outlaw them, any more than you could outlaw adultery or thievery or whatever. If people are going to live immoral lives, they'll live them. But we shouldn't bless them.
...........
{snip}

BLITZER: Without calling it marriage, should they have the same basic rights of inheritance and visitation and adoption as married people?

FALWELL: See, I think that all you have to do is make a will in this country. You can leave your estate to your dog if you want to. This is all a red herring.
...............

{snip}

FALWELL: The fact is that our heavenly father, when Sodom and Gomorrah decided to be an immoral homosexual community, God did not give them very much blessing when he destroyed them. And God is angry with our nation in even tolerating the thought of same-sex marriage.

{snip}

BLITZER: I want Reverend Falwell to respond to what Vice President Dick Cheney said in the presidential debate, the vice presidential debate, against Joe Lieberman four years ago, October 2000, when asked about the sensitive issue of gay marriage. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 2000)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions. And that's appropriate. I don't think there necessarily should be a federal policy in this area.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You disagree, clearly, with what the vice president said then.

(CROSSTALK)

FALWELL: I love and respect Dick Cheney, and I'll vote for him in November if he's on the ticket. I understand where he's coming from, and I don't want to even comment on it.

But I do want to say this, that, in this culture, if we're going to say a loving relationship should have constitutional protection, what about a man wanting 10 wives? Polygamy is outrageous. What about an adult man, NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love Association, wanting a little boy? A loving relationship is not enough.

That would mean a mother and son could marry. It's got to be more than that. There's got to be a legal and a theological basis. And God gave the plumbing. Anybody who knows plumbing knows God didn't make men with men, women with women. God made it so it doesn't work any other way.
{snip}

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon




Well, the gay relatives aren't trying to deny rights to the Republican relatives. That's how I choose sides on this one.

Martin Luther King said the worst impediment to equal rights were the moderates who kept saying "slow down, you're asking too much too fast, you'll alienate people". How shallow and paternalistic, these people who callously set the timetable for another man's liberation.

I am a democrat but I have very few views in common with Michael Moore, my wife is a republican and does not have much in common with Pat Buccannon. You should not try to make this a Democrat Vs Republican issue, I know a large number of latino Democrats who abhor the idea of gay marriage. But if you called it something else they would be on your side. If you stick with the banner of Marriage then they will flock to the Republican side.

The large moderate middle is much more tolerant and understanding of Gay issues now then ever before, however where people start talking about Gay Marriage in the same breath with Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, it just some how loses its punch.

[Pyrrho]

This isn't the first time that politicians have inflated an emotional issue far beyond its real importance. Politicians love these kinds of issues; they can stand up and make all kinds of important-sounding pronouncements and paint dire pictures of the doom that will befall the country if their particular opinion is not heeded. All the while, they are ignoring more important issues and real problems are not being addressed.

Voters, too, enjoy these kinds of issues. They, too, can set aside thinking about genuine problems while they exercise their righteous indignation.

If the President of the United States thinks that applying the term "marriage" to the legal union of two people who happen to be of the same gender is a genuine threat, then, in my opinion, he's just another self-righteous politician looking for a few cheap votes.

News flash: gay couples refer to themselves as "married" already, and have done so for many years. The only thing lacking is the legal formalization.

But, it's an election year. Isn't it always?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW


The large moderate middle is much more tolerant and understanding of Gay issues now then ever before, however where people start talking about Gay Marriage in the same breath with Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, it just some how loses its punch.

And people said the same thing when King quoted Moses.


Look, I don't agree with probably ANYTHING Michael Moore says, nor do my Republican family quote Fallwell.

However, we have a President who has decided to make this a campaign issue. He'll get reelected based on how far he can push rights away from the reach of my family.

This is undoubtably a civil rights issue. Have you lived in an era when gays were afraid to go to a bar for fear of being rounded up by the cops and beaten? I have.

Have you lived in an era when restaurants bore signs that said "Fags stay out"? I have.

Have you lived in an era when families get their windows smashed for the mere rumor that their high-school aged boy is gay? I have.

Jesse Jackson has said this isn't a civil rights issue, because voting hasn't been denied. He is utterly wrong on this one. If gayness was visible on the skin, there's no doubt in my mind this would be an issue too.

Somehow Jesse Jackson confuses equal rights with voting rights. I guess those black students sitting at Woolworth's lunch counters in 1960 got lost on their way to the polls.

[Skeptic]

How many other constitutional amendments do you suppose were premised upon fear of bad court decisions or fear of litigation or fear of uncertainty?

Many of the first ten amendments (the "bill of rights") were passed precisely in order to make sure no court in the future will decide that trial by jury is unnecessary, or forced self-incrimination allowed, etc.

Where is the need? Why must marriage be "defended?" How would undefended marriage affect the rights of any men and women currently married? Is there any married couple that would lose rights or benefits?

Yes, in the long run.

Upon reflection, I became convinced that a lot of this has to do with money. Married couples get certain benefits. That costs money. If the definition of "marriage" is extended more and more, eventually these benefits would cost too much to be maintained.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic Upon reflection, I became convinced that a lot of this has to do with money. Married couples get certain benefits. That costs money. If the definition of "marriage" is extended more and more, eventually these benefits would cost too much to be maintained.


What benefits?

1) Tax breaks for married people.

2) Health insurance.

3) Social Security benefits.

The tax breaks are a wash. The tax code gets amended every year anyhow, it will just be changed to compensate if it becomes a problem.

Health insurance is largely employer paid with employee contributions. As always, this is something to be negotiated between the two.

Social Security, that’s the only real cost I can think of. The surviving partner will get benefits until he/she dies.

Are there other benefits I’m not thinking of?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
Thoughful points. And as far as realizations go, I'll let you in on the fact that I respond more to emotional arguments than non-emotional ones. So, the anecdotes you mention speak to me more than phrases like "It's just wrong."

I was just trying to help you understand me better, not convince you of anything. I was getting the idea you thought I was being hostile.

I agree that nonhostile approaches are the best.

But then I think that getting married is a non-hostile approach. I think the religious people yelling at us from across the street, describing in detail the Hell that awaited us all had the hostile approach. (Okay, that was an exaggeration. The protesters were mostly silent, but their signs told us about hell.)

And I bet those signs did nothing to convince you that you were in the wrong.

People were just getting married on valentines day. What could be more non-hostile than that, except for hiding away?

Name me one movement for equality that got equality by rolling over and becoming invisible, and you've got my vote.

Ah. Now we are getting somewhere. This is the objective thing I wanted to talk about.

Comparisons have been made between gay marriage and black civil rights. It sort of applies, and it doesn't. But I am going to use that in the context of those parts which do apply.

In our day and age, we can all pretty much agree that slavery is wrong. There are a few whackos who still don't think so, but they don't have much of a voice, even amongst most racists.

However, 200 years ago, slavery was not universally agreed upon to be a bad thing.

So "bad" is subjective to its times.

Slavery did not disappear from the U.S. because of moral outrage, although there certainly was a lot expressed over it. Slavery disappeared because it just didn't work out. It disappeared violently, though, because of human frailties and fears.

The entire country had slavery at one point. But some people learned pretty quickly that it wasn't economically viable. If you had a crop that was only harvested once or twice a year, it was a losing proposition having to pay the overhead of having slaves year round. Food, housing, clothing, etc.

The North learned this more quickly than the South. Partly because of the difference between the kinds of crops grown in the North vice the South, but partly also because of cultural differences.

So slaves were ever so surely concentrated into the South as they were sold off from the North as the laws changed in the North banning further importation and emancipation of the children of slaves.

So in the South, slavery became synonymous with manual labor. To do manual labor was looked down upon as a result. No self-respecting Southerner would stoop so low as to get his hands dirty. An aristocracy was born. And the institution became entrenched. But because slavery was not economically viable, the North prospered greatly while the South stagnated.

The inevitability of the end of slavery was evident to everyone, including Southerners. But there was no comfortable way out, and they knew they were trapped in a lose-lose situation. The idea of freeing a people who looked and behaved nothing like them was anathema. But their economy was dying.

Violence was inevitable. If the South was allowed to separate from the Union, slavery would still have to go sooner or later, and then violence would have been in the form of genocide and race war with god knows what as the end result.

Slavery ended. And blacks have been slowly, oh so slowly, gaining their rights as human beings ever since.

So a bad thing came to an inevitable end. But that end had a high cost.

You said, "Name me one movement for equality that got equality by rolling over and becoming invisible, and you've got my vote." I will respond by asking you who got farther and accomplished more, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcom X?

Rolling over does not equate to being invisible.

Gay people need to show they are better than their opponents. That is the way it has always been. The underdog has to do more, work harder, and behave better than the top dog. This is the way to prick a national conscience. Make the heteros ask themselves why they are denying gays the same status.

Shouting and flaunting and demanding don't work.

If homosexual marriages are not a "bad" thing, then time will work it out. How ugly it works out is up to each of us.

[Luke T.]

You say this:
Originally posted by Silicon
Truthfully? I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

But then immediately after, say this:

I think that any two adults should be able to form a civil union, and designate their own next of kin, and function as a single fiscal and legal unit, if they choose. And it should be as easy as a marriage license is today. That way, everyone would be equal, non-traditional families (like a mother and a mother-in-law raising a child with a dead father) would also be protected.

"Legal unit?" That's government in the marriage business right there. That's what this is all about.

God's Advocate was on the right track in saying, "Whether it is called civil union or union or common law or whatever, from the government's point of view they are all the same, whether same sex or not."

I would only change that to say "from the People's point of view."

Calling it a "civil union" won't fool anyone. This is about what it means, and what societal benefits are derived from it, and the majority opinion is that it should be reserved for a man and a woman only.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Shouting and flaunting and demanding don't work.Are you saying that Martin Luther King didn't shout, flaunt or demand? I think he did, but I didn't exist at the time, so I may be wrong.

[peptoabysmal]

I'm thinking that there is no way in heck this amendment is going to be ratified.

This is just political noise; Bush is trying to rally support of the extreme right wing that are not happy with him giving away so much pork to appease special interests and for him proposing amnesty for illegal aliens.

I imagine it will eventually be left like this (after the Supreme Court passes a ruling or two): States will be free to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but other states don't have to honor those licenses.

Then again... we are due for another social upheaval (approx every 50 years). Maybe this will be the spark that sets it off? A new civil rights march?

[Lemastre]

The major point of the Bushies proposed amendment is to garner votes in the upcoming general election. The Bushies know that the idea of "gay marriage" is fairly new, and like most new ideas is regarded suspiciously in vast areas of this country where queer-bashing is not a daily issue but simmers on the back burner, ready to be inflamed by propagandists. Many of these potential voters are suspicious of anything that seems foreign, including folks who aren't just like them. Why such people feel threatened by homosexuals eludes me, but they seem to regard it as contagious.

[Rouser2]

The Constitution is a dead letter. As far as the government and the courts are concerned, it does not exist, when not in the government's interest. For example, we have a never amended constitutional law prohibiting any kind of legal tender for payment of debts but gold or silver coin. If you try that one in court concering the payment of a debt, you get cited for contempt. So much for the US Constitution.


-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The Constitution is a dead letter. As far as the government and the courts are concerned, it does not exist, when not in the government's interest. For example, we have a never amended constitutional law prohibiting any kind of legal tender for payment of debts but gold or silver coin. If you try that one in court concering the payment of a debt, you get cited for contempt. So much for the US Constitution.


-- Rouser

Where in the constitution does it say that?

Here ?



Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This only refers to state law, not Federal law. The government is perfectly entitled to do so

Reading comprehension really isn't a strong point is it ?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Marriage isn't a "right." It is a social norm. No, a social norm is a cultural expectation. "Marriage" is a legal state carrying with it a significant number of legal responsibilities and rights.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The whole idea of marriage was to encourage the people to "go forth and multiply" and to provide a stable environment for the kids. So heterosexuals who don't want to have children should have their marriages annuled by the government?

The more I read your posts, Luke T., the more I'm underwhelmed by the quality of your reasoning.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Hey, I'm guilty. I'm on my third marriage. :(


Have you had your subsequent marriages regularized within The Church? I am assuming a church wedding occurred somewhere sometime, one that may need to be annuled so that you may re-acquire the freedom to enter a new, sacramental marriage.

Sound unnecessary? It might to the lesbian couple across the street from you who've been living together the last eleven years. (What, now that they're married are they going to start parking in your driveway?) Because they're not getting a church wedding, are they? Any sanctity of marriage declared to need protection against gay marriage is but religious belief.

Then again, I got married by Elvis. But no one (here in the US, at least) has ever suggested to me that my marriage is invalid. How about you?

I like gay marriages. Everyone dresses so fabulously.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, a social norm is a cultural expectation. "Marriage" is a legal state carrying with it a significant number of legal responsibilities and rights.

Exactly. And who qualifies for that legal standing is the social norm, or "cultural expectation" if that is what you want to call it, which is by definition defined by the majority.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So heterosexuals who don't want to have children should have their marriages annuled by the government?

The more I read your posts, Luke T., the more I'm underwhelmed by the quality of your reasoning.

You are mistaking a reality which expresses the way things are for my reasoning. Perhaps your perceptiveness is what is wanting here. :D

You are barking up the wrong tree. If I pointed out that one of the main reasons we have an interstate highway system today is because Eisenhower felt we needed roads which could rapidly transport heavy troop vehicles in case of invasion, would you attack my reasoning since we never were invaded and ask me if we should dismantle it?

edited to add: Swarm, I think you are misunderstanding my approach to this topic. I am merely doing my best to present my understanding of how opponents of gay marriage view the issue.

To answer your question about people who marry but don't have kids, I will quote from a letter the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians:


Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

That is how many Christians view sex outside of marriage. They consider it a sin. Paul recommends chastity, as he lived, so that one can concentrate one's entire life and thoughts on all that his holy. But if a person is unable to go without sex, then they should marry so that they are not committing a sin.

This is not my reasoning. I am merely pointing out where Christians are coming from. You have been shooting the messenger.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Have you had your subsequent marriages regularized within The Church? I am assuming a church wedding occurred somewhere sometime, one that may need to be annuled so that you may re-acquire the freedom to enter a new, sacramental marriage.

I was never married in a church. I was an atheist during my first two. For the third marriage, I did use a Navy chaplain. I don't even know what denomination he was. My third wife and I were married by him in a nice public park.

[Skeptic]

For example, we have a never amended constitutional law prohibiting any kind of legal tender for payment of debts but gold or silver coin.

Not this nonsense again...

The STATES are forbidden to print paper money, because it is one of the powers specifically reserved to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--like making international treaties and declaring war.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...," but Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states that Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin," with no mention of any restriction to gold or silver. To put it simply, states can't coin money except in gold or silver; Congress can (and did, by establishing the federal reserve, the mints, etc.)

The fact that states are not allowed to MAKE anything "except in gold and silver" legal tender on their own does not, of course, mean that they may not ACCEPT anything except for gold and silver as payment. They must, of course, accept Federal reserve notes, which is the US's legal tender (the fact that it FRNs must be accepted as a payment of debt is, in fact, what MAKES it "money", as opposed to similar--or even identical--pieces of paper not issued by the Federal Reserve.) McDonald's is not allowed to print its own legal tender either (even in gold or silver), but it must accept federal reserve notes as payment for food you but there. Your local coffee shop owner may not demand payment in gold instead of FRNs arguing that, since he's not allowed to print FRNs himself, he is not allowed to accept them as payment.

Finally, the fact that the states have the RIGHT to make gold and silver currency does not mean that they MUST issue such currency, or that one can demand to pay one's debts in gold or silver. If the state decides not to issue such currency--I do not believe any of the fifstates today issues its own currency--then this means its only currency is the federal one, namely, FRNs. You cannot demand to pay your state taxes in gold because the state has the right to issue such currency if it chooses, any more than you can demand your doctor give you a prescription for medicine you don't need just because he has the right to write prescriptions for that medicine.



See:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#money

on this specific issue, and also:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

Debunking the "federal reserve notes are part of a giant conspiracy" nonsense.

[Skeptic]

So heterosexuals who don't want to have children should have their marriages annuled by the government?

No. They simply won't recieve the tax breaks and other benefits couples with children have.

[Luke T.]

I don't think the fact that there are straight people who abuse marriage by getting married on a whim or divorcing is a good argument to allow gays to get married so they can do the same thing.

Voting is more of a "right" than marriage is. And some people abuse their voting rights by voting for Snoopy for President, or don't even vote at all. That doesn't mean we should allow resident aliens the "right" to vote. That is one "right" we deny to millions of people in this country who pay taxes and are affected by laws which they can't even vote on.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't think the fact that there are straight people who abuse marriage by getting married on a whim or divorcing is a good argument to allow gays to get married so they can do the same thing.

It's not meant to be an argument in favor of allowing gay marriage. It's simply a response to those who are going on and on about how we need to protect marriage. How we need to keep it from being corrupted. The high rate of divorce calls into question their basic premise.

I watched some of the debate on CNN last night. They had Fred Dobson and some minister dude. Both came across like ignorant bigots. There was no reason to any of their positions, just the bible which they don't seem to realize is NOT the law of the land.

[TillEulenspiegel]

God's advocate:
"If so (or if not) would you have been content with a civil union that carried all the same legal rights as a marriage but the term "married" was reserved for Religious ceremonies? I'm starting to think our governments (US and Canada) should ignore the term "married" and use a separate term that applies to all and leave "married" for the churches."

I haven't read the whole thread but as far as I'm aware, People who get married in the states have to have a Marriage license issued by the state. The legal process is already invoked regardless of what the "religious" standing is I.E Catholic,Jewish, Islamic...

That leads me to believe that the same sex unions not addressed by the religious authorities can still enjoy a legal parity without the use of a single word- marriage. I think that the separation from the church would allow for a greater acceptance by the public ( in fact the majority already endorses same sex unions) and the only thing that would have to be addressed is the legal standing in areas of inheritance, tax law and other protections afforded by the current definition of marriage.

The issue of a constitutional amendment is a non-starter. Thank god that the framers made it so difficult to ratify them.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Exactly. And who qualifies for that legal standing is the social norm, or "cultural expectation" if that is what you want to call it, which is by definition defined by the majority. You are confusing a cultural expectation with legal requirements. By your logic, we were correct to consider black slaves to be three-fifths of a person in terms of representation, as the normative belief at the time was that they were indeed less than fully human.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You are barking up the wrong tree. If I pointed out that one of the main reasons we have an interstate highway system today is because Eisenhower felt we needed roads which could rapidly transport heavy troop vehicles in case of invasion, would you attack my reasoning since we never were invaded and ask me if we should dismantle it? If you can offer no greater justification for its existing, and its continuation would impose a substantial social penalty with no benefit, then yes.

This is not my reasoning. I am merely pointing out where Christians are coming from. You have been shooting the messenger. As the messenger has delivered substandard service while bringing previous messages, I fail to see the problem.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No. They simply won't recieve the tax breaks and other benefits couples with children have. So you assert that it is childrearing that grants the benefits, not marriage itself?

I think a quick examination of the U.S. legal code will counter that assertion readily.

[SRW]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

That leads me to believe that the same sex unions not addressed by the religious authorities can still enjoy a legal parity without the use of a single word- marriage. I think that the separation from the church would allow for a greater acceptance by the public ( in fact the majority already endorses same sex unions) and the only thing that would have to be addressed is the legal standing in areas of inheritance, tax law and other protections afforded by the current definition of marriage.

The issue of a constitutional amendment is a non-starter. Thank god that the framers made it so difficult to ratify them.

I think you are dead on with your assessment. Except about the amendment, I think the wording on the amendment is the important part. That is to say gets the word married out of the government realm and leaves it in the religious world.

I think it would be hard to do with out a federal mandate of some kind, I would be thrilled with an Amendment that band gay Marriage but gave same sex couples all the same Rights under the banner of "civil Unions" or some other term.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Don
This only refers to state law, not Federal law. The government is perfectly entitled to do so

Reading comprehension really isn't a strong point is it ?

As much as I hate to be defending anything Rouser2 says, the Constitution must actively restrict the states from exercising a certain power; it does NOT have to specifically restrict the Federal government from having the power, since Federal powers are (supposed to be) limited to what is specifically granted by the Constitution. Read the 10th Amendment.

NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to run a central bank or a fiat currency.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The Constitution is indeed a dead letter, to be trumpeted when convenient and ignored when inconvenient.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
You are confusing a cultural expectation with legal requirements. By your logic, we were correct to consider black slaves to be three-fifths of a person in terms of representation, as the normative belief at the time was that they were indeed less than fully human.

Not "correct," per se. I guess you didn't read my post to Silicon on "bad" being subjective to the times. The same would apply to "good" or "correct."

And the 3/5 rule was a political ploy. An example of the South trying to have its cake and eat it, too. They wanted slaves to be considered property for the purposes of their right to own them and do with them as they pleased, but at the same time they wanted slaves counted as people for purposes of numerical representation in Congress. The population of the North was exploding along with their exploding prosperity and the South felt threatened by that. They feared they would be eventually greatly outnumbered in Congress and the North would end up dictating all the laws of the nation, including the laws about slavery.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If you can offer no greater justification for its existing, and its continuation would impose a substantial social penalty with no benefit, then yes.[/b]

Marriage does not impose a substantial social penalty, and it has many benefits. Not the least of which is that it encourages the production of children and a stable, healthy environment for them to grow up in.

As the messenger has delivered substandard service while bringing previous messages, I fail to see the problem.

Sometimes it is a reading comprehension problem.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So you assert that it is childrearing that grants the benefits, not marriage itself?

I think a quick examination of the U.S. legal code will counter that assertion readily.

Your reading comprehension is failing again. ;)

There are marriage benefits, and then there are additional benefits which come with having children. A married couple with no kids will receive the former without the latter.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by SRW


I think you are dead on with your assessment. Except about the amendment, I think the wording on the amendment is the important part. That is to say gets the word married out of the government realm and leaves it in the religious world.

I think it would be hard to do with out a federal mandate of some kind, I would be thrilled with an Amendment that band gay Marriage but gave same sex couples all the same Rights under the banner of "civil Unions" or some other term.

To some people opposed to gay marriage, one of the purposes of the amendment is to prevent gay couples from receiving those benefits. It makes no difference if you call it "marriage" or "civil union," they will attempt to prevent gays from receiving equal benefits.

I'm sure not all who are opposed to gay marriage feel that way. Some of them probably just chafe at seeing an ordained minister performing the ceremony for a gay marriage.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Marriage does not impose a substantial social penalty, and it has many benefits. I don't recall claiming that there were penalities associated with marriage. Denying the ability to marry imposes a substantial social penalty on gay couples.

Not the least of which is that it encourages the production of children and a stable, healthy environment for them to grow up in. 1) We really don't need to encourage the production of children. And since marriage is not limited to couples intending to reproduce, this is a rather pointless statement. 2) Unfortunately, marriage does not guarantee that there is a "stable, healthy environment" for children. Nor is it even necessarily conducive to such a state.

Sometimes it is a reading comprehension problem. Admitting the problem is the first step to overcoming it. I hope you find the strength to move past your intellectual limitations.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
There are marriage benefits, and then there are additional benefits which come with having children. A married couple with no kids will receive the former without the latter. So grant the former but not the latter, unless the gay couple in question adopts children. Problem solved.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I don't recall claiming that there were penalities associated with marriage. Denying the ability to marry imposes a substantial social penalty on gay couples.

It is not a penalty. Nothing is being taken away from them.


1) We really don't need to encourage the production of children.

Oh, really? Since when?

And since marriage is not limited to couples intending to reproduce, this is a rather pointless statement.

That is a recent erosion of the community standard. Having children out of wedlock was unacceptable until recently. And it is still unacceptable to many Americans who are only tolerating it.

2) Unfortunately, marriage does not guarantee that there is a "stable, healthy environment" for children. Nor is it even necessarily conducive to such a state.

A two parent family is a much better guarantee of stability than a single parent one, and certainly better than a government facility.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So grant the former but not the latter, unless the gay couple in question adopts children. Problem solved.

The original idea behind this particular line of conversation was that marriage was to encourage people to have kids and give them a stable environment to grow up in. That is what the majority of married people do, but there will always be those who don't have kids, either by choice or unfortunate physical inabilities. Those exceptions to the rule are not a reason to grant the same privileges that are given to married people to another group because they meet the same standards as the exceptions.

[Luke T.]

I've been meaning to add that I don't believe the proposed amendment will even survive. It takes a 2/3 "yea" vote to pass in both the House and Senate, and then 3/4 of the States would have to approve before the Constitution would be amended. With those facts in mind, I don't believe it will even make it out of the House. A majority of people may be against gay marriage, but a majority is also against amending the Constitution.

[Luke T.]

The issue is simple. A lot of people think homosexuality is wrong. Not so many people think it isn't wrong. It wasn't so long ago that engaging in homosexual activity could land you in prison. That has changed for the most part. Progress is being made. Nowadays, the prevailing attitude is "whatever you do in your own bedroom between consenting adults is okay, I just don't want to hear about it." Asking for approval for two men or two women to marry each other is outside those boundaries. That may be just for the moment.

One side believes gay marriage is wrong, the other believes it is okay. It is a morality issue, not a legal one. Pure and simple. And right now, the "moral majority" opinion is that it is wrong.

Our history shows that the "moral majority" is not inflexible.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is not a penalty. Nothing is being taken away from them. The ability to marry for stupid, trivial, pointless, and ultimately harmful (to the people involved and for society) reasons. As long as the married individuals are of opposite genders. Given that, not permitting marriage because the two individuals are of the same gender seems to be a pretty clear case of discrimination.

I suppose you would also suggest that Sideshow Bob didn't express a threat to Bart Simpson in the following scene:

"People in this neighborhood I will not kill: Ned Flanders, Maud Flanders, Rod and Todd Flanders..."
[Ned]: "Well, isn't that nice?"
: "...Homer Simpson, Marge Simpson, Lisa Simpson, that little baby Simpson... that is all."

Yeah, sure.

[b]That is a recent erosion of the community standard. Having children out of wedlock was unacceptable until recently. And it is still unacceptable to many Americans who are only tolerating it. Irrelevant. Having children in wedlock was not required for the wedlock itself to be valid.

[b]A two parent family is a much better guarantee of stability than a single parent one, and certainly better than a government facility. Then we should be all for letting gays marry and adpot, yes?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]


>>Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>This only refers to state law, not Federal law. The government is perfectly entitled to do so

Property rights are the province of the states, within its own boundaries. The Federal Government cannot by law make something a tender that the states are prohibited from making. The Federal government has no constitutional authority to determine what a legal tender shall be, for the Founders, in their wisdom, made that the province of the States, but with the gold and silver chains of the constitution to make sure there would be no monetary mischief. The States cannot coin money; only Congress has the power to coin money and the states are bound to keep the Feds honest by making no thing but gold and silver coin a tender. Of course, the States and the Feds have broken through those constitutional chains which simply provides further proof that it, the Constitution, is a dead letter.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Skeptic [/i]


>>Not this nonsense again...
>>The STATES are forbidden to print paper money, because it is one of the powers specifically reserved to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

That is false on its face. The Federal government only has the power to COIN, not "print" money, although "Bills of Credit" are another matter since such bills are not, and never were considered "money." You've got to go back in history to get your head straight on definitions. Money, by standard, well understood defintion of the time was only that consisting of the precious metals -- gold or silver.

>>Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...," but Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states that Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin," with no mention of any restriction to gold or silver.

At the time of the framing of the Constituion, "money" meant coins minted from gold or silver. The restriction to gold and silver is spelled out in Art I., Sec. 10. The two sections together thus make up a separation of powers the precise purpose of which, in Founder Roger Sherman's words, was to forever "crush paper money." It was the role of the States to forever keep the Feds in line as to the issuance of honest money.

>>To put it simply, states can't coin money except in gold or silver; Congress can (and did, by establishing the federal reserve, the mints, etc.)

There was no Federal Reserve at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no any mention of central banking. That is another, separate issue, also further evidence that it, the Constitution of today, is a dead letter.

>>The fact that states are not allowed to MAKE anything "except in gold and silver" legal tender on their own does not, of course, mean that they may not ACCEPT anything except for gold and silver as payment.

Actually, that is correct. They can "accept" anything. But the states cannot MAKE anything a tender but gold and silver coin -- by force of law.

>>They must, of course, accept Federal reserve notes, which is the US's legal tender (the fact that it FRNs must be accepted as a payment of debt is, in fact, what MAKES it "money", as opposed to similar--or even identical--pieces of paper not issued by the Federal Reserve.)

All of that, of course, runs completely contrary to Art.I., Sec. 10 of the Constitution, which is my whole point.

>>Finally, the fact that the states have the RIGHT to make gold and silver currency does not mean that they MUST issue such currency,

More confusion. The states do not have the "right" to make gold and silver a tender, but the Constitutional Obligation to do so. Nor do the states have the "right" to "issue" such "currency". The issuance, or coinage of gold and silver is the Constitutional province of the Federal Congress.


>>-I do not believe any of the fifstates today issues its own currency

Course not. The States are prohibited from doing so by Art. I, Sec. 10 "... No state shall coin money; emit bills of credit, etc."

>>--then this means its only currency is the federal one, namely, FRNs.

The only currency defacto are indeed FRNs, but such bills of unfunded credit are not permitted by our Constitution. Again, my whole point.

>>See:
>>http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#money

I'd advise against believing anything this anti-tax protestor kook says. Do your own research He cites Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884) as the landmark supreme court case that forever allowed for something other than gold and silver coin to be a tender. The Julliard case was a terrible case, and did indeed open the door to later interpretations that further denigrated the legal tender clauses of the Constitution, BUT, Julliard v. Greenman was not about Federal Reserve notes at all, nor about paper money per se, but about notes of the Federal government, issued in time of war, to be later redeemable for gold in silver in time of peace. Get your facts straight.

-- Rouser

[Skeptic]

The two sections together thus make up a separation of powers the precise purpose of which, in Founder Roger Sherman's words, was to forever "crush paper money."

I thought you just said paper money didn't exist back then?

How could Sherman refer to "paper money" if such a thing (you claim) didn't exist at the time?

Why "crush" something that didn't exist?

Or did Roger Sherman mean to say, "the purpose of the constitution was to crush paper money made of gold or silver"?

Gee, that makes sense...

I'd advise against believing anything this anti-tax protestor kook says.

Then again, you also advise against believing the moon landing happened.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Luke T.

One side believes gay marriage is wrong, the other believes it is okay. It is a morality issue, not a legal one. Pure and simple. And right now, the "moral majority" opinion is that it is wrong.
Some believe that changing a few of society's rules may undermine the necessary foundations of that society which secure the family and preservation of the human species. Others believe that replacement of unjust (albeit "majority") opinions by something truer benefit that same society.

You'd have to assume that any further development of society is possible to begin with to go along with the latter, of course.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Skeptic [/i]

(Rouser)
>>>>The two sections together thus make up a separation of powers the precise purpose of which, in Founder Roger Sherman's words, was to forever "crush paper money."[/B]

>>I thought you just said paper money didn't exist back then?

Never said any such thing. Paper currency did indeed exist prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Nonetheless real money was considered to be only gold or silver coin. Get your facts, misquotes, and attributions straight.


>>Then again, you also advise against believing the moon landing happened.

Never said that either. But at least you are consistent in your own mindless babblings.


-- Rouser

[richardm]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Paper currency did indeed exist prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Nonetheless real money was considered to be only gold or silver coin. Get your facts, misquotes, and attributions straight.


So did nobody use the paper money, then?

I'd suspect that the situation was similar to that in Britain at the time, where paper money was more along the line of a modern Banker's Draft, rather than something you'd use down the shops. I think it was really the early 19th Century when paper money became more prevalent in Britain, simply because it was considered more convenient to carry than an equivalent value of coin.

Edited to add: Bank of England notes were made legal tender in 1833 (i.e. if you were a creditor you safely accept them to settle a debt - in other words, you could use them down the shops to buy a newspaper (except that in 1833 a £5 note represented a substantial sum, and would get you laughed at and/or mugged by the paper boy)

[LW]

Originally posted by Luke T.

That is a recent erosion of the community standard. Having children out of wedlock was unacceptable until recently. And it is still unacceptable to many Americans who are only tolerating it.


It may have been socially unacceptable, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I've read an interesting book about criminal history in Finland (Ylikangas, Aikansa rikos) that is based on surviving court records. Even during the "Puritan period" of the 17th century when the Swedish laws were explicitly based on the Mosaic Laws and "fornication" in all forms carried severe penalties (fines, stocks, sometimes even whipping), a number of girls got themselves pregnant out of wedlock. [And in a really surprising number of cases the stated father was: "some stranger they met on the highway", though in most cases they probably were protecting the real father].

I'd bet that there has been lots of sexual "immorality" going on through all times, but previously people didn't talk about it in public.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by richardm [/i]


>>So did nobody use the paper money, then?


When? Before the adoption of the Constitution, paper "money' (properly referred to as "money substitutes") proliferated. After ratification, paper notes and certificates redeemable in specie (gold or silver) were in use, and perfectly constitutional, so long as they were redeemable. Redeemable notes and certificates were in use in the U.S. till about 1967. Federal Reserve Notes then became the defacto, though unconstitutional legel tender. Of course, such notes are a fraud on their face. They are not "Federal" because they do not emanate from the Federal government since they are created by a private banking syndicate; there is nothing of any substance on "reserve" to back them, but more of the same, and they are not "notes," because a real note is a promise to pay in real money.

-- Rouser

[Hutch]

Per the IRS site, this is the story on the "legal tender" issue.

Some assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not valid currency and cannot be taxed, because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterperts Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

The Law: Congress is empowered "to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to fix th eStandard of weights and measures." U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the states from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress' power to declare the form of legal tender.

They go on to quote several pieces of case law that has consistently rejected the claim Rouser2 has been making.

Just FYI

[Lemastre]

Bush brings up banning gay marriage by amending the Constitution to distract us from his many screwups. Are we that easily distracted? Just look over this thread, which started out about the amendment and is now going on about paper versus gold money.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The ability to marry for stupid, trivial, pointless, and ultimately harmful (to the people involved and for society) reasons. As long as the married individuals are of opposite genders. Given that, not permitting marriage because the two individuals are of the same gender seems to be a pretty clear case of discrimination.

Again, this is a weak argument. Did you see my voting analogy? People waste and abuse and throw away their votes for stupid, trivial and pointless reasons, but that is no reason to allow another group the right to vote. Not allowing resident aliens to vote is a pretty clear case of discrimination, too.

Then we should be all for letting gays marry and adpot, yes?

The majority believes it to be wrong for gays to marry. You are hitting a stone wall with your approach. Call it a dumb reason (which it may well be) all day long, but that is not going to change things.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The original idea behind this particular line of conversation was that marriage was to encourage people to have kids and give them a stable environment to grow up in. That is what the majority of married people do, but there will always be those who don't have kids, either by choice or unfortunate physical inabilities. Those exceptions to the rule are not a reason to grant the same privileges that are given to married people to another group because they meet the same standards as the exceptions.

Consistency in law (otherwise known as "equal protection" mandated by the Constitution), requires that if you deny benefits to one group on certain grounds, then those grounds are prohibitive across the board.

Your "Resident alien" example does not apply, because there is a separate legal ground for denying them the right to vote that is not at issue.

The ability to have children is not a legal factor in the right to marry, so it cannot be denied to just one group solely on that basis. If you want to require "parental viability" to allow marriage, it should apply to all.

On another note, I have seen cynical comments that the constitution only matters when it is convenient for the government. I must disagree, I have seen plenty of examples where an administration wants to do something and was stopped by the Constitution.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by gnome


Consistency in law (otherwise known as "equal protection" mandated by the Constitution), requires that if you deny benefits to one group on certain grounds, then those grounds are prohibitive across the board.

Your "Resident alien" example does not apply, because there is a separate legal ground for denying them the right to vote that is not at issue.

The ability to have children is not a legal factor in the right to marry, so it cannot be denied to just one group solely on that basis. If you want to require "parental viability" to allow marriage, it should apply to all.

All righty then. Why aren't polygamists and bestiality lovers entitled to "equal protection?"

[Frank Newgent]

You'd have to assume that any further development of society is possible to begin with to go along with the latter, of course.
Forgive me if I anticipate a reply.

If no further development of society is possible to begin with is it because society is, at least as far as the rejection of gay marriage is concerned, already in the right and, therefore, unable to move to a higher, more differentiated stage or is it because we simply lack the rational wherewithal to approach this in such a way as no higher, more differentiated stage as ever been observed as existing?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Brown
Where is the need? Why must marriage be "defended?" How would undefended marriage affect the rights of any men and women currently married?

Election-time pandering? Looka me, I'm a republicochristian! I doubt any such amendment would pass, and if it passed it wouldn't be ratified.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Hutch [/i]

>>Per the IRS site, this is the story on the "legal tender" issue.

Per the "IRS" site? That's no "IRS: site. It's a polemic on a subject that isn't even relevant to this thrread. What has that got to do with Art. I., Sec. 10???

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Some assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not valid currency and cannot be taxed,


Not an assertion I have made. I merely asserted that the States are making something other than gold and silver coin a tender in contravention to the Constitution, which prohibits the States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender. The point is, thus, that it is merely one prime example of why the Constitution is a dead lettter.


>>because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterperts Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

>>The Law: Congress is empowered "to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to fix th eStandard of weights and measures." U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the states from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress' power to declare the form of legal tender.


But that, of course, is not the law at all. There is no Constitutional empowerment for the Congress to even make or enforce tender laws. All you are doing is repeated the sophistries of an anti-tax protestor kook, with absolutely basis in law. Not that you understand any of this.


>>They go on to quote several pieces of case law that has consistently rejected the claim Rouser2 has been making.

And just what rejected claim would that be? That the states are indeed making no thing but gold a silver coin a tender??? And just which states would those be? Can you name one?

-- Rouser

[gnome]

Originally posted by Luke T.


All righty then. Why aren't polygamists and bestiality lovers entitled to "equal protection?"

You act like you've never heard a response to this typical question before. I'm disappointed.

The marriage is a binary arrangement. To increase the numbers, via polygamy, would require a whole new set of laws, and basically makes it a completely different issue. But personally I'm not morally against a formalized polygamous relationship. Whether it requires, or is wise to have state sanctioning, depends on what arrangement was proposed.

And bestiality has problems with consent, clearly. Why do opponents of unusual arrangments continue to bring up ones that are not analogous for this reason?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mycroft


What benefits?

Disposition of bodies. Access to medical decisions.

Both of which should be easily handleable with contract law, which is why I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by gnome

The marriage is a binary arrangement.

Says who?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
People waste and abuse and throw away their votes for stupid, trivial and pointless reasons, but that is no reason to allow another group the right to vote. Not allowing resident aliens to vote is a pretty clear case of discrimination, too. Except that there is a very good reason for resident aliens not to vote - namely, that voting is an perk of citizenship which carries both privileges and responsibilities. There is no such reason that justifies denying social recognition for a particular form of contract - namely, that two people of the same gender should be prevented from entering into the same contractual relationship that is accepted for two people of the opposite gender.

We can deny people citizenship unless they meet certain criteria, but those criteria cannot be arbitrary. We can deny rights to certain groups if they meet certain criteria, but not arbitrarily. The denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is arbitrary.

The majority believes it to be wrong for gays to marry. You are hitting a stone wall with your approach. Call it a dumb reason (which it may well be) all day long, but that is not going to change things. Again, you're living proof that humans don't generalize cognitive skills very well. Your ability to think rationally about even basic arguments seems to collapse as soon as they subject enters the political arena. Your objections are... invalid, at best.

[Luke T.]

Again, you're living proof that humans don't generalize cognitive skills very well. Your ability to think rationally about even basic arguments seems to collapse as soon as they subject enters the political arena. Your objections are... invalid, at best.

Oh, so people don't oppose gay marriage because they think it is wrong, or a sin. Then tell me why they do, Swarm. Educate my feeble mind.

edited to add: This (http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html) is what proponents of gay marriage are really up against.


To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. I belief the Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage. As Christians, we are to seek to share the love of God and salvation through Christ with homosexuals. We are to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their sinful lifestyle.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Except that there is a very good reason for resident aliens not to vote - namely, that voting is an perk of citizenship which carries both privileges and responsibilities.

Yup, and so does marriage. The analogy is working so far.

There is no such reason that justifies denying social recognition for a particular form of contract - namely, that two people of the same gender should be prevented from entering into the same contractual relationship that is accepted for two people of the opposite gender.

We can deny people citizenship unless they meet certain criteria, but those criteria cannot be arbitrary. We can deny rights to certain groups if they meet certain criteria, but not arbitrarily. The denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is arbitrary.

Not being allowed to vote if you aren't a citizen is not arbitrary? How odd that you think so!

[Skeptic]

Never said any such thing. Paper currency did indeed exist prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Nonetheless real money was considered to be only gold or silver coin.

(Sigh) let's take this one from the top, shall we?

1). The states are not allowed to "make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts". The very nature of this sentence makes clear that there IS, or at least could be, such a thing as legal tender--that is, money--which is NOT made of gold and silver; e.g., paper money, or money coined from non-precious metals; otherwise, there would be no point to the prohibition.

2). What is the point of this prohibition? Consider the rest of the things states are not allowed to do: They are not allowed, for instance, to "enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation"; nor are they allowed to "keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace"; nor are they allowed to "engage in war" (unless actually invaded). Does this mean that states, which are "not allowed to keep ships at time of peace" means that a (federal) navy vessel may not be kept on a state's coast? Of course not. Does this mean that if the federal government enters into a trade treaty with Zimbabwe, or declares war on Easter Island, the states must not recognize that treaty or war? Of course not.

If your interpretation of this section was correct and the "real point" of this prohibition was to give the states a way to "resist" federal paper money by refusing to recognize it, then by analogy the "real point" of the prohibition of raising a navy is to give the states a way to "resist" the creation of a federal navy, the "real point" of the prohibition on foreign treaties is to give the states a way to "resist" the federal government making treaties with other countries, etc. In other word, the "real point" of the section of the constitution that seems to limit the states' power on certain issues would be to make the states all-powerful on those issues! That might makes sense in the crossed-eyed tax-protestor "pay-triot" reading of the condtitution, but not anywhere else.

3). The real point of all these prohibitions, of course, is precsiely the OPPOSITE of what the Tax Protestor idiots claim. The states are not allowed to declare war, harbor a navy, or recognize paper money as legal tender INDEPENDENTALLY of the federal government; it does not mean they can refuse to recognize a war, or a navy, or paper currency that the federal government does create. On the contrary: a state must recognize federal paper currency as legal tender for the same reason it must recognize the federal navy or the federal speed limit: all three were created by a FEDERAL LAW, and federal laws must be obeyed by the states.

4). The only remaining issue is whether the federal government does, in fact, have the power to create paper money by law, in the same way it has the power to raise a navy or declare war. While the constitution does not expressly PERMIT congress to create paper money, it does not expressly FORBID it, either. The issue is whether the constitution forbids anything it doesn't expressly permits, or whether it permits anything it doesn't expressly forbids. Contrary to what you seem to think, the founders were by no means settled on this issue, and many of them were, in general, in favor of allowing Congress to do things not expressly forbidden, and, in particular, in favor of allowing Congress to print paper money. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty3.html

While you quoted one of the founders who was opposed to paper money, in fact many of the founders were FOR paper money, or at the very least, opposed to prohibiting congress from establishing it. The federal government issues paper money since 1812, and never, EVER, had any such law been declared unconstitutional. I suppose you think this means that the eeeeeevil gubirmint konspiracy to "pervert" the "true intention" of the constitution started in 1812 at the latest, and with those "corrupt" founders that didn't know what the constitution "really meant" and spoke in favor of the view that it allows paper money as early as 1787.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Says who?

Existing law covers it as a binary arrangement. I don't claim that's all it could ever be, but current law has few implications that are affected by the gender of the parties involved, whereas changing the number of parties would have a significant effect.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Agreed. Ultimately there's no reason why social contracts couldn't be drawn up between more than two people, but that would require significant changes to the system as a whole. Simply permitting gay marriage requires little to no change.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by gnome
Existing law covers it as a binary arrangement. I don't claim that's all it could ever be, but current law has few implications that are affected by the gender of the parties involved, whereas changing the number of parties would have a significant effect.

Thanks, Gnome. We've been discussing this issue for a while and I hadn't yet seen this particular argument. It's dead on.

A good example. If you were in a coma, your spouse would have the right to make medical decisions, like pulling the plug. Change the situation so it's a gay marriage, and there's no difference. The law wouldn't have to change to accommodate this situation.

But if it's a polygamous marriage, the situation is not covered under current law. Say you have four wives. Which one gets to make the medical decisions? Do they vote? What if there's a tie? You would have to amend a whole host of laws to spell out the legal ramifications. Same goes for inheritance and custody laws.

[nightwind]

Yes, it is pretty ridiculous to have a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

But is probably just being pushed as such, because the "conservative culture" is afraid that the courts will not rule the way they want.

This should be a states issue and taken care of in the courts, etc.

I don't mind gays getting married, and it is pretty much a non issue with me, but I frankly really don't see the harm in calling a same sex union something different than marriage. I mean call it a union, or a rumpage, or whatever else.

This would satisfy the redneck bubbas and hypocritical overly religous nuts anyway.

But not a constitutional amendment.

[subgenius]

(CBS) Of all the places in the United States that you'd think would be prepared to defend against a terrorist attack, the nine nuclear weapons factories and research labs - operated by the Department of Energy - would be at the top of the list.

But a recent investigation by the government's General Accounting Office found that the Department of Energy may not be up to the task – and that security at these sites is inadequate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/12/60minutes/main599957.shtml

At least marriage will be secure.

[fishbob]

Luke said:One side believes gay marriage is wrong, the other believes it is okay. It is a morality issue, not a legal one. Pure and simple. And right now, the "moral majority" opinion is that it is wrong. I have to disagree. The argument is strictly legal. Equal rights, period. Equal access to social security, tax breaks, inheritance, everything. Foundations of family or society considerations are irrelevant.

It does not matter whether the majority, minority, or only Jerry Falwell objects. The gool old US constitution lays out a system to prevent tromping on the rights of minorities by the majority.

It has taken a while to free slaves, allow women to vote, and take care of some of the inequalities left over from the late 1700's, but there is no reason not to continue the effort.



PS: I am not a libertarian.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Agreed. Ultimately there's no reason why social contracts couldn't be drawn up between more than two people, but that would require significant changes to the system as a whole. Simply permitting gay marriage requires little to no change.

So equality has to be convenient, is that it? Lucky for blacks that isn't true.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by gnome


Existing law covers it as a binary arrangement. I don't claim that's all it could ever be, but current law has few implications that are affected by the gender of the parties involved, whereas changing the number of parties would have a significant effect.

Not as big an effect as integration did!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by fishbob
Luke said: I have to disagree. The argument is strictly legal. Equal rights, period. Equal access to social security, tax breaks, inheritance, everything. Foundations of family or society considerations are irrelevant.

Then we are back to arguing that polygamists must have equal access, too. And single people are being discriminated against. We'll have to fix that, too.

[SRW]

Originally posted by fishbob
Luke said: I have to disagree. The argument is strictly legal. Equal rights, period. Equal access to social security, tax breaks, inheritance, everything. Foundations of family or society considerations are irrelevant.

It does not matter whether the majority, minority, or only Jerry Falwell objects. The gool old US constitution lays out a system to prevent tromping on the rights of minorities by the majority.

It has taken a while to free slaves, allow women to vote, and take care of some of the inequalities left over from the late 1700's, but there is no reason not to continue the effort.



PS: I am not a libertarian.

It is not quite that simple, gays are not denied any rights that any other people are given, provided that they marry people of the opposite gender. Judge A my believe that homosexuality is a choice and not subject to protection, where judge b will decide it is not a choice and gay couples must have the same Rights. And that is where you run into to moral emotional and psychological aspects.

I contend that this issue requires an amendment,one that provides for a special legal status for gays . Otherwise you will end up with a hodge podge of conflicting court rulings, state, local and federal laws that are not honored in every state.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
PS: I am not a libertarian.

Well, nobody's perfect. :p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Then we are back to arguing that polygamists must have equal access, too.

And what's wrong with that? How does it affect my life or yours?

And single people are being discriminated against. We'll have to fix that, too.

Yes, we will. Because these "privileges" of marriage are really rights that were taken away from us and then granted back to couples the government recognizes as being married. Sure, married couples pay lower income taxes, but no one should have to pay any income taxes. Married couples get more Social Security benefits, but Social Security is a fraud that must be abolished. No one can be forced to testify against a spouse, but no one should be forced by the government to testify against anyone. A spouse can make medical decisions for someone, but you should be able to specity whomever you want as having that ability. The insurance companies should be left on their own to decide individually for themselves whether or not to give special rates etc. for married couples, and what constitutes a married couple. And so on.

There is just no role for the government whatsoever in the marriage business, other than the basic enforcement of any contracts that should happen to spring up as a result.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Then we are back to arguing that polygamists must have equal access, too. And single people are being discriminated against. We'll have to fix that, too. We mustn't try to fix things! That might require an initial investment of effort. Instead, let's just let the system remain broken and try to convince people that it works just fine.

Now, there's the conservative spirit in action!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
No one can be forced to testify against a spouse, but no one should be forced by the government to testify against anyone. Do you really think so? That's a position I haven't heard very often. Fascinating.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
We mustn't try to fix things! That might require an initial investment of effort. Instead, let's just let the system remain broken and try to convince people that it works just fine.

Now, there's the conservative spirit in action!

Vs. the Libertine Loony Left you mean?

A society that's been functioning now for 200+ years, with by orders of magnitude the most freedoms, the best economy, the only super-power remaining, people here in "poverty" who are better off than 99% of the world but hey, let's "fix" it, by ****** around with things we really don't understand which may or may not have significant but unknown long term effects.

Or in the final analysis, equal outcomes for all 6 billion of us, tomorrow. My astounding luck at the parents I received is noted, but my altruism does not extend to giving it all away for ill-conceived reasons, and to make a few others in the US "happier". Sorry.

[fishbob]

Luke:Then we are back to arguing that polygamists must have equal access, too. And single people are being discriminated against. We'll have to fix that, too. The issue is not about polygamists. Limiting the meaning of marriage will not fix polygamy anyway. Single people are not being discriminated against. Now you are just being silly.

A bit of education would fix most polygamal issues. What educated person would want to be spouse number 2?

SRW:I contend that this issue requires an amendment,one that provides for a special legal status for gays . Otherwise you will end up with a hodge podge of conflicting court rulings, state, local and federal laws that are not honored in every state. I contend that deleting laws limiting marriage is all that is required. No special privileges for anyone.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Do you really think so? That's a position I haven't heard very often. Fascinating.

Well, why should the government be able to force you to testify against, say, your best friend?

[SRW]

Originally posted by fishbob

I contend that deleting laws limiting marriage is all that is required. No special privileges for anyone. [/B]

So who is going to delete these laws? Elected officials? Dream on? Judges? Not likely, some but not all.

I have yet to hear a practical solution when you take into account that ~65% of the people in the U.S. Oppose Gay Marriage.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, why should the government be able to force you to testify against, say, your best friend? For the same reasons it can force me to testify about something else - the interests of justice are paramount.

Personally, I would be in favor of the idea of abolishing the spousal exemption.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.

And single people are being discriminated against. We'll have to fix that, too.


I already answered that in the other bazillion-page gay marriage thread.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35690&perpage=40&pagenumber=4


Michaellee,

There are singles advocacy groups out there, fighing for your rights. I support you in that quest.


But you fail to address the MANY rights that only 2 or more people can have, that are completely useless for a single person.



Such as:

The right to jointly own property. Obviously one single person doesn't need this.

The right to visit your sick spouse in the hospital. Again, if you're in the hospital, you can visit yourself.

The right to have joint custody of one parent's child. Not anything you need by yourself, but something my family needs.







Here's a sample list of other rights that two married people need, that are denied to gay couples, but single people have no need for:




joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents)

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;






...on and on and on....

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hammegk
A society that's been functioning now for 200+ years, with by orders of magnitude the most freedoms, the best economy, the only super-power remaining, people here in "poverty" who are better off than 99% of the world but hey, let's "fix" it, by ****** around with things we really don't understand which may or may not have significant but unknown long term effects.

Or in the final analysis, equal outcomes for all 6 billion of us, tomorrow. My astounding luck at the parents I received is noted, but my altruism does not extend to giving it all away for ill-conceived reasons, and to make a few others in the US "happier". Sorry.

Wow. I had no idea that allowing a few more people to be married was such a threat to our existence. Yikes. I guess we should never change ANYTHING for fear of "****** around with things we really don't understand." You've opened my eyes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For the same reasons it can force me to testify about something else - the interests of justice are paramount.

True justice cannot be found by pointing guns at the innocent.

[fishbob]

I have yet to hear a practical solution when you take into account that ~65% of the people in the U.S. Oppose Gay Marriage. It does not matter how big a majority of the people in the US oppose gay marriage. As I noted before, the majority does not have the right to remove rights from the minority. Unequal rights violates the intent of the US Constitution.

Also, what possible harm could it do to that 65% if gays are allowed equal rights? How would it affect you? Some vague pillar of society argument is meaningless, no money comes out of your pocket, no other laws are invalidated. Why do you care? What right do you have to care?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ipecac


You've opened my eyes.

I'll pray to Ed for you that it is so, but unfortunately (for you) suspect you are j/k.

What mindless kill-em-all computer game do you like best?

What specific type of porn provides the biggest turn-on for you?

What is your drug-of-choice? How often do you take it?

Are your parents divorced? Are you gay? Are you happy?

[SRW]

Originally posted by fishbob
It does not matter how big a majority of the people in the US oppose gay marriage. As I noted before, the majority does not have the right to remove rights from the minority. Unequal rights violates the intent of the US Constitution.

Also, what possible harm could it do to that 65% if gays are allowed equal rights? How would it affect you? Some vague pillar of society argument is meaningless, no money comes out of your pocket, no other laws are invalidated. Why do you care? What right do you have to care?

You are not paying attention are you?

It does matter how many people oppose gay marriage because as long as the politicians see the polls nothing will change.

No I am saying you do not have a practical way of changing the current situation. You say change the law. Fine...Every law in all 50 states? The Federal law? the California Constitution?

Dream on.

Now read as I say this again.

I think that there should be a Constitutional amendment that Guarantees the rights of "GAY PARTNERS". The wording I propose would "BAN GAY MARRIAGE" but Codify in all states the right for "GAY PARTNERSHIPS" and assure that they have the rights and privileges accorded to married couples.

If anything will work than that will, not your just change the law, that is vague and meaningless.


Fine if you want to argue this point with me I'll be glad to. I already agree that Gays should have the same rights as everyone else so why are you arguing that with me?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Not as big an effect as integration did!

I think you misunderstand me. Once marriages were integrated, how many of the rules governing marriage had to change?

[gnome]

Originally posted by SRW
It is not quite that simple, gays are not denied any rights that any other people are given, provided that they marry people of the opposite gender.

By that argument, allowing homosexuals to marry would not lead to any kind of special legal status either, because consequently straight people would then also be free to marry the same gender.

[fishbob]

Fine if you want to argue this point with me I'll be glad to. I already agree that Gays should have the same rights as everyone else so why are you arguing that with me? Looks like we are in disagreement about tactics, not goals. My point is that laws defining or limiting marriage should be repealed rather than creating any new laws. I think it would be easier to implement. Politicians don't get whacked for passing laws unpopular with one side or the other, the unfair laws just get deleted.

[pgwenthold]

In what has to be the funniest comment in this whole gay marriage thing, we go to California


Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the justices Friday to intervene in the debate while they consider the legality of the marriages. More than 3,400 couples have tied the knot since San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses two weeks ago under the directive of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Lockyer told the justices it was a matter for the courts, not the mayor, to decide. He did not take a position on whether same-sex marriages should be deemed constitutional.


So as long as gay marriage is illegal, the courts need to butt out. In fact, any court that says that laws against gay marriage are illegal are "activist judges." But if someone decides to give out marriage licenses to gay people, then they cry that it should be up to the courts.

You gotta love the irony of it all. Unfortunately, I don't think they recognize their own hypocrisy.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'll pray to Ed for you that it is so, but unfortunately (for you) suspect you are j/k.

What mindless kill-em-all computer game do you like best?

What specific type of porn provides the biggest turn-on for you?

What is your drug-of-choice? How often do you take it?

Are your parents divorced? Are you gay? Are you happy?

What does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Care to explain your train of thought?

[Zero]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
In what has to be the funniest comment in this whole gay marriage thing, we go to California



So as long as gay marriage is illegal, the courts need to butt out. In fact, any court that says that laws against gay marriage are illegal are "activist judges." But if someone decides to give out marriage licenses to gay people, then they cry that it should be up to the courts.

You gotta love the irony of it all. Unfortunately, I don't think they recognize their own hypocrisy. Actually, I think that is the logical position...about the mayor, not that whole 'activist judge' lie.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I think that is the logical position...about the mayor, not that whole 'activist judge' lie.

Of course. When you take two completely opposite positions, one of them is likely to be right.

The issue is not that he says "It's for the courts to decide." It is that in this case, it's up to the courts, but when the courts do decide (against what he wants), then suddenly they aren't good enough.

[Zero]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Of course. When you take two completely opposite positions, one of them is likely to be right.

The issue is not that he says "It's for the courts to decide." It is that in this case, it's up to the courts, but when the courts do decide (against what he wants), then suddenly they aren't good enough. Right, I get you...;)