GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The possible Amendment probably is going to read more like "Gays shalt not get married" or however. Not something guaranteeing a state's right to change that. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on Gay Civil Unions. I don't see anything there about States' Rights.

[Guest Loss]

Bullshit, Mike. You're demonizing a group of people for wanting equal rights, and you're using the "system" bullshit as an out. I'm not demonizing anyone. The entire party has united and is backing a ban on gay marriage. This is discrimination and it's also prejudiced. It's no more complicated than that, no matter how much you try to make us think otherwise.

[Special K 0]

Can anyone make a case against civil unions?

 

And Paul H, Smiley humor isn't considered an effective argument. It's pretty much just giving up and calling someone a poopface.

 

as to NAMBLA, that's bullshit. Pedophilic relationships clearly harm the young party.

 

Being gay is a trend? Dude, I wouldn't want to have sex with someone to whom I was not attracted, subjecting myself to ridicule, just to be 'hip'.

[Guest Paul H.]

Don't get me started on women's "rights".

 

Feminism...ugh.

 

 

I'mma be in that WWE folder if anybody needs me..Holla what the deal?

[Guest MikeSC]

The possible Amendment probably is going to read more like "Gays shalt not get married" or however. Not something guaranteeing a state's right to change that.

Nope, the Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A state can EXPAND that if they wish. They can always go ABOVE the rule of the Constitution if they choose to do so --- they just can't do LESS.

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on Gay Civil Unions. I don't see anything there about States' Rights.

Real simple:

 

Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

A state can opt to include homosexuals in this if they so desire. Other states will NOT be required to do so, nor will they be required to acknowledge it.

 

It's the only possible path to leave it up to the states.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Don't get me started on women's "rights".

 

Feminism...ugh.

 

 

I'mma be in that WWE folder if anybody needs me..Holla what the deal?

Yeah, women are people. What a radical idea!

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Don't get me started on women's "rights".

 

Feminism...ugh.

 

 

I'mma be in that WWE folder if anybody needs me..Holla what the deal?

Yeah, No you won't.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

PS, anyone who has a problem with me banning a queerbashing chauvinistic troll can feel free to leave the board.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bullshit, Mike. You're demonizing a group of people for wanting equal rights, and you're using the "system" bullshit as an out.

Who's demonizing anybody? If gays can win a vote to get marriage --- GOOD FOR THEM. Do so. Marry until you're blue in the face.

 

But don't expect me to smile while you simply give a big "fuck you" to the electorate and go to the lawyers to get you what you cannot gain on your own.

I'm not demonizing anyone.

That, of course, is bullshit.

The entire party has united and is backing a ban on gay marriage.

And "dehumanizing gays" that is.

This is discrimination and it's also prejudiced.

This is me continuing to not give a shit. If you cannot win a popular vote for your position, that is, in the end, YOUR problem.

 

I want to see the income tax abolished. Guess what --- it isn't happening in my lifetime. I deal with the disappointment and move on with life.

It's no more complicated than that, no matter how much you try to make us think otherwise.

No, you're upset that I'm making you think --- period --- on this issue.

Yeah, women are people. What a radical idea!

Too bad feminism has gone from equality to simple, petty man-bashing.

 

Just like the civil rights movement, it was once noble and useful.

 

Now, it is not.

-=mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Real simple:

 

Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

A state can opt to include homosexuals in this if they so desire. Other states will NOT be required to do so, nor will they be required to acknowledge it.

 

It's the only possible path to leave it up to the states.

-=Mike

That'd be AWESOME... if that's what the amendment said.

 

"Article --

 

"SECTION 1. 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."

[NoCalMike 0]

The possible Amendment probably is going to read more like "Gays shalt not get married" or however. Not something guaranteeing a state's right to change that.

Nope, the Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A state can EXPAND that if they wish. They can always go ABOVE the rule of the Constitution if they choose to do so --- they just can't do LESS.

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on Gay Civil Unions. I don't see anything there about States' Rights.

Real simple:

 

Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

A state can opt to include homosexuals in this if they so desire. Other states will NOT be required to do so, nor will they be required to acknowledge it.

 

It's the only possible path to leave it up to the states.

-=Mike

Here is my problem with the whole "state's rights" thing though. CA passed medical marijuana initiative time and time again, yet the Feds keep trying to raid the offices here. So how strong exactly are state laws when it comes to unique issues like these that divide a nation. I mean your beer law analogy is cute and all, but it doesn't exactly inspire a nation to divide and envoke passion.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

^See, that's what I'd figured. Fuck that amendment.

[Guest MikeSC]

Real simple:

 

Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

A state can opt to include homosexuals in this if they so desire. Other states will NOT be required to do so, nor will they be required to acknowledge it.

 

It's the only possible path to leave it up to the states.

                  -=Mike

That'd be AWESOME... if that's what the amendment said.

 

"Article --

 

"SECTION 1. 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."

And, please note the relevant point:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require

"Construed to require".

 

Or, in simple terms, you don't HAVE to let anybody above this get married.

 

You know, exactly what I said from the get-go.

-=Mike

...If this is a "ban", then it's a damned weak one...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

There was really no question as to what it would say. Mike's argument is simply a straw man to try and justify FMA by state's rights standards. FMA would disallow any state from choosing whether or not they accept gay marriage. It's VERY clear in its language. That's why Dick Cheney opposes it.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Double post, but I'll use it to say "good call" on giving Paul H. teh boot.

[Guest MikeSC]

Here is my problem with the whole "state's rights" thing though. CA passed medical marijuana initiative time and time again, yet the Feds keep trying to raid the offices here. I mean your beer law analogy is cute and all, but it doesn't exactly inspire a nation to divide and envoke passion.

And they shouldn't do so --- but there are federal laws on the book that trump state laws.

So how strong exactly are state laws when it comes to unique issues like these that divide a nation.

The problem is that there is a FEDERAL ban on marijuana. There shouldn't be, but there is. You cannot pass state laws that violate federal laws --- note that even in the most pro-gun state, state gun laws can't go against federal gun laws.

 

This amendment does not say "Gays can't marry". It says states don't have to recognize gay marriages. Not the same thing at all.

 

Keep in mind, there is NO federal law on marriage --- and the FMA isn't about to change that. Different states have different age requirements, some require blood tests, etc. This is simply another difference.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

You want marriage rights? Then make your fucking case to the voters. Don't bitch and moan at lawyers to do what you have failed, miserably, to do on your own.

Right, because a well thought-out logical argument is going to suddenly change the minds of everyone who opposes the idea. "Oh, how could I be so wrong? I now see the error of my ways. Come, let me embrace you, my gay brothers."

 

You're dealing with people who have long-standing religious/prejudiced/biased beliefs, and who aren't going to be persuaded by anything proponents have to say. It's one thing if you're trying to persuade unbiased voters who have a genuine interest in making an informed decision, but that's not the case.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

 

What is your major malfunction in not seeing the first sentence of this ban?

 

Are any of our states exempted from being in the United States, and thus allowing them free reign over their marriage laws?

[Guest MikeSC]

There was really no question as to what it would say. Mike's argument is simply a straw man to try and justify FMA by state's rights standards. FMA would disallow any state from choosing whether or not they accept gay marriage. It's VERY clear in its language. That's why Dick Cheney opposes it.

Actually, I am arguing PRECISELY what it is saying. What part of "not contstrued to require" is so lost on you?

 

If a state WANTS to do so --- feel free. You want to marry gays, do so.

 

However, nobody is REQUIRED to acknowledge it or do the same.

 

Making it a federal issue, like it or not.

 

Dick Cheney can oppose it if he wishes. More power to him.

Right, because a well thought-out logical argument is going to suddenly change the minds of everyone who opposes the idea. "Oh, how could I be so wrong? I now see the error of my ways. Come, let me embrace you, my gay brothers."

70 years ago, nobody could imagine whites and blacks going to school together peacefully.

 

The civil rights community made a case and won over the populace. The courts stepped in and did what was becoming more and more popularly desired.

You're dealing with people who have long-standing religious/prejudiced/biased beliefs, and who aren't going to be persuaded by anything proponents have to say.

People thought blacks were inferior. Slavery still got outlawed and rights eventually got protected.

It's one thing if you're trying to persuade unbiased voters who have a genuine interest in making an informed decision, but that's not the case.

Seeing as how the proponents haven't even TRIED --- don't expect any empathy out of me. Nothing is going to turn people against you quicker than demonizing and then basically them to fuck off.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, I am arguing PRECISELY what it is saying. What part of "not contstrued to require" is so lost on you?

 

 

What part of "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" is so lost on YOU?

[Guest MikeSC]

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

 

What is your major malfunction in not seeing the first sentence of this ban?

 

Are any of our states exempted from being in the United States, and thus allowing them free reign over their marriage laws?

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

 

You seem to miss that. Repeatedly.

 

Alcohol is legal. States deal with it differently.

Marriage is legal. States deal with it differently.

 

There is no federal law saying "Gays can't marry".

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

If that's what the amendment says MikeSC, it's essentially EXACTLY like the Defense of Marriage Act, which is in effect right now. So why would they even try the amendment?

[Special K 0]

If that's what the amendment says MikeSC, it's essentially EXACTLY like the Defense of Marriage Act, which is in effect right now. So why would they even try the amendment?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Is anyone besides Mike reading this and failing to see how the Amendment clearly and frankly spells out that marriage outside of a man and a woman will be outlawed for everyone?

 

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

 

 

This doesn't leave much wiggle room for states to say "Well, we allow gay marriage!" Unless they LEAVE THE UNION, they're IN THE UNITED STATES. If marriage in the United States--yeah, that includes all of the individual states--consists only of a man and a woman, the states cannot say "Well, we think it should be between any two adults!"

 

You know why?

 

Federalism. State constitutions cannot trump the federal constitution, and if this amendment passed, the federal constitution would clearly and vividly state that:

 

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, I am arguing PRECISELY what it is saying. What part of "not contstrued to require" is so lost on you?

 

 

What part of "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" is so lost on YOU?

What part of "not construed to require" recognition of others is so lost on you?

 

I will assume you know what the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is.

 

What would stop proponents from forcing other states to approve gay marriage by having married couples move to another state and forcing recognition?

 

A federal definition of what marriage is.

 

At no point does it say "Marriage cannot exist between homosexuals" --- and using basic Constitutional logic, anything not EXPRESSLY stated is fair game (the backbone of this entire problem, mind you).

 

If NY legalizes gay marriage, then it's legal in NY. If a couple gets married there and moves to, say, SC --- then they won't be married here. SC will not be FORCED to accept something because somebody else does so.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

The courts stepped in and did what was becoming more and more popularly desired.

You could argue that gay marriage has gained acceptance, too. More people are in favor of it today than 5-10 years ago. Granted, it's not overwhelmingly accepted (nor is it overwhelmingly in the opposite direction), but it's been creeping up.

[Guest Loss]

So basically, what you're saying is that black people had to earn their rights, so gays should have to do the same. Why support such a struggle? I'd rather us learn from history than repeat it step-by-step personally, because I don't want people getting shot in the streets or spit on in public again, and that's practically what you're advocating another round of. I'd rather we grow than go through that again. Why not *learn* something from the Civil Rights Movement about tolerance and process and improve on it?

 

Wow. You do realize that you're saying that gays should earn equality if they wan't it, right?. It saddens and scares me that you don't see the dangers or contradictions in that mindset.

[Guest MikeSC]

If that's what the amendment says MikeSC, it's essentially EXACTLY like the Defense of Marriage Act, which is in effect right now. So why would they even try the amendment?

Because I don't see how it will stand, given the current trend in jurisprudence.

Is anyone besides Mike reading this and failing to see how the Amendment clearly and frankly spells out that marriage outside of a man and a woman will be outlawed for everyone?

It's because you're not reading it. You've simply bought the demonization.

 

Go ahead --- tell me where it says gay marriage CANNOT happen. Tell me where it says "marriage is between a man and a woman and NOBODY else is allowed to get married"?

 

Marriage in the US consists of a man and a woman. That DEFINES marriage, to appease the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". And states can decide --- just as they do with age requirements --- who qualifies. They can't ban ANY heterosexual marriage --- but they can choose to ban homosexual ones if they so desire. They can also legalize them if they so desire.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Saying that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman IS essentially saying "Gays can't marry." Unless it's a gay man and a gay woman getting married, and then, what's the point?

 

If the federal government then wouldn't recognize a state-recognized marriage, the couple in question wouldn't get any marriage benefits on a federal level. What's the deal with that?

[Guest Loss]

Go ahead --- tell me where it says gay marriage CANNOT happen. Tell me where it says "marriage is between a man and a woman and NOBODY else is allowed to get married"?

He has. Repeatedly. The word "only" covers a lot of ground.