C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Sorry to hog the posting, but I have something else to say about gay marriages. I don't think that it is an issue that should be decided by the federal government. I feel that these kind of issues should be decided on a state by state basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Perfxion 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Well, if I know my US history correctly, since no where in the Constitution says anything about gay marriages or straight marriages. It falls under the 10th admenment meaning it is ONLY a state issue unless the courts turns it down. The only way the federal goverment can ban gay marriages is if it becomes an admentment, which will prevent the courts from banning it. The reason this debate came out is because Karzy Karter said something really stupid and never backed it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Sorry to hog the posting, but I have something else to say about gay marriages. I don't think that it is an issue that should be decided by the federal government. I feel that these kind of issues should be decided on a state by state basis. That doesn't work though. That would mean that two guys might be "married" in one state but if they move to another state it wouldn't be recognized. If you get a driver's license in Pennsylvania, it's good in all fifty states and all US territories. It isn't an issue where some states will refuse to recognize your license in their states. However, gay marriages wouldn't be because some states will simply refuse to recognize them. You simply can't do it. You have to have a uniform law about it, and whether it's "no gay marriages" or "yes to gay marriages." it has to be uniform. Having the states individually decide what their stance on a major issue is and having it reflect itself in the laws doesn't really have a high success rate. At the same time, I hate when the states lose power, but I see no agreeable solution. I guess some states will just call them "civil unions" and grant partial marriage rights then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 21, 2004 I fail to see how underpopulation would result from gay marriage, as the freedom isn't going to produce more homosexuals. The issue of marriage is a social one, but the issue of allowing a civil union just seems like common sense. There's something wrong when a couple is together for 30 years and they have no rights to hospital visitations or estates, which are the two reasons it should be allowed. The money could be spent better elsewhere? What money? I don't understand. As for the war in Iraq, TheMikeSC pointed out that humanitarian efforts were used as an excuse when Clinton invaded Bosnia, but then you have people like me, who opposed that *and* oppose the current war. That's why using "Well, this person did it so you can't say this person can't" logic is short-sighted and dangerous, because culture never advances and society never improves if, to play off of a previously used example, Marty takes a 20-minute break when he's only allowed 15, and as a result, Joe does the same because he feels entitled to it. Loss4Words, who is actually voting Republican in the next election simply because changing administrations in the middle of all of this could be more dangerous than we could imagine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 The thing I really worry about from the SotU is that if we keep going on the offensive in Middle Eastern countries and others, we run the risk of spreading ourselves too thin. A lot of civilizations were brought down because of this reason. Also, I think that it was pretty short sighted of Bush to say that other Middle Eastern Countries would follow Iraq's lead and start to institute democracies. They all hate Iraq, as well as each other, and no country over there will follow another's lead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Sorry to hog the posting, but I have something else to say about gay marriages. I don't think that it is an issue that should be decided by the federal government. I feel that these kind of issues should be decided on a state by state basis. But there, you run into problems about two people being legally married (and everything that entails) in one state, then moving to another state and having no status whatsoever. The states WILL get their say if Bush tries to push an amendment through, though. It takes 38 states to amend the constitution, and I don't think Bush can scrape that many together. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mosaicv2 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 duh i tihnk bush is a big dumb crap-for-brains who is the wrost president since millard fillmore who almost sank this country to its knees in the crisis of '35. tis is wat Vince does to all of the great indy talent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 WHERE? Mars? So it is wrong to give money to homosexuals but is allowable for Hollywood to do what it wants to marriages? So Married by America is ok and morally right but its morally wrong for two people who actually LOVE each other to marry and get the benefits that is ALLOWED by LAW. Just to throw my .02 in here, but no. Those are quite morally wrong to me and dishonor the entire concept of marriage (in my opinion). And no, before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I don't hate gay people. Hating a person? Now that is morally reprehensible to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 aren't marriages religious fundamentally anyways? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 21, 2004 They are. And I'm indifferent on the actual MARRIAGE issue. But civil unions should be allowed, simply for reasons of practicality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 if marriages are fundamentally religious and there is a separation between church and state (let me know if I'm off on anything, I don't follow politics), then how is it that the government can say any kind of marriage is illegal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 if marriages are fundamentally religious and there is a separation between church and state (let me know if I'm off on anything, I don't follow politics), then how is it that the government can say any kind of marriage is illegal? Because there are many government benefits and tax details that come with being recognized as "married", thus you can be married in the eyes of the church, but legally it's up to the government... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 well wtf? If you're married in the eyes of the church, then it should count. If they say gays can't marry, wouldn't that be favoring the religions that are against it over the ones that aren't? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 well wtf? If you're married in the eyes of the church, then it should count. If they say gays can't marry, wouldn't that be favoring the religions that are against it over the ones that aren't? The church doesn't run our government. What if the church of satan says your married? What are the standards? You can't just say if this religion says you're married than you're married in the eyes of the law because it would be favoring a religion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Doesn't matter what church it is. What tax benefits come with marriage, anyways? Side note: If 2 athiests get married, do they go to a church to do it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 21, 2004 The main benefit is that if a lesbian couple purchases a house together, when one passes, the other can keep it instead of it going to the state or other relatives. If a man is hospitalized, he can be visited by his partner just as much as they'd allow spousal visitation. THOSE are the main issues to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 I'll answer your sidenote question. 2 atheists would not be allowed to be married in a church (by the church's bylaws, not by any governing law). They would have a justice of the peace perform the ceremony. You can have it performed at a courthouse, or anywhere really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 oh, ok. Yeah, L4W's reasons are good, although the house one could be gotten around via a will, couldn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 21, 2004 If a will is written, most likely, although a good lawyer could find ways around it. If no will is written, everything would either go the family or the state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Having the states individually decide what their stance on a major issue is and having it reflect itself in the laws doesn't really have a high success rate. I beg to differ. Anyway, I'm against it mostly because I'm usually against permanently banning things. What if in fifty years, not giving gays marriage is considered the most ludicrous thing since blacks were kept as slaves? What if it seems like natural common sense to allow gay marriage? Our future peoples would have to fight like hell to undo a constitutional amendment left behind by our short-sighted Republican leaders. Go fig. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 I still say making gay marriage illegal will never happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 EDIT: Never mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 EDIT: Okay Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 22, 2004 Having the states individually decide what their stance on a major issue is and having it reflect itself in the laws doesn't really have a high success rate. I beg to differ. Anyway, I'm against it mostly because I'm usually against permanently banning things. What if in fifty years, not giving gays marriage is considered the most ludicrous thing since blacks were kept as slaves? What if it seems like natural common sense to allow gay marriage? Our future peoples would have to fight like hell to undo a constitutional amendment left behind by our short-sighted Republican leaders. Go fig. If it is widely viewed as being ludicrous, then overturning the Amendment shouldn't be a problem, right? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 If it is widely viewed as being ludicrous, then overturning the Amendment shouldn't be a problem, right? -=Mike Overturning amendments ARE a problem, because the Constitution is righly held in high regard. It should not be muddied with crap like gay marriage bans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 If it is widely viewed as being ludicrous, then overturning the Amendment shouldn't be a problem, right? When the Constitution becomes like any other law, to be amended or repealed on a whim, the government loses all credibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 didn't they do that with prohibition or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 Yeah, and it was disgraceful then, too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 22, 2004 If it is widely viewed as being ludicrous, then overturning the Amendment shouldn't be a problem, right? -=Mike Overturning amendments ARE a problem, because the Constitution is righly held in high regard. It should not be muddied with crap like gay marriage bans. It would have to PASS the Congress AND the States. Lamer Amendments have been rejected (see ERA) -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 22, 2004 It would have to PASS the Congress AND the States. Lamer Amendments have been rejected (see ERA) -=Mike I agree. I'm against the gay marraige ban in principle, but I'm specifically against Bush's support of it because I know he knows it won't make it to his desk. This is a stupid nod to the far-right Christian groups to tell them that, even though he's giving additional benefits to illegal immigrants and other typically Dem issues he's taken on, he still knows what side his bread is buttered on. Talk about the sanctity of marriage all you want. That Bush threatens the sanctity of the Constitution to please the religious right is pretty awful, even if it's a promise he knows he won't be tried on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
