| First off in my personal opinion I think it is no ones busness what gays do and if they want to get married I could care less, if they can get some chruch to bless that marrage in the name of morality and God I have absolutly no objection.
Next, my objective is not to have the consitution amended, that is Bush's idea. I was only articulating that stand as a background for a debate about his objective, and because Bush cannot speak well about his ideas so I simply did it for him, not that I agree with him - because I do not.
I also spoke about group marrage and the Mormons, etc. So did not just base this on the homosexual situation alone.
It could be that Congress would vote that a marrage certificate by anyone and everyone is not useful for legal matters, that all couples would need some other kind or types of documents from some governmental office. But a marrage document presently does determine certain rights of individuals because that certificate indicates who is or is not a family member.
Example, let us say that the Vice Presidents daughter (who is gay) was living with her best friend for years in one house, suddenly she dies, whould her friend have legal rights to all the stuff in that house or not? Or could other family members and relatives have a better claim (assuming no last will had been scripted). Those are important issues for the gay community but a real certificate of marrage would solve such disputs because the courts reconize it as a legal document - but the document is issued by religion, so we already got a strange kind of mixture between state and religion in effect, as to whom has the authority to say what constitutes a marrage? Should it be the church only, or laws that are based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? That is the question.
Should we view marrage as just something moral that people do for the sake of a religious belief, or should we view marrage as a binding and legal busness contract between two people?
Or both, and if both is so then should we ban gays because we think religion has determined that such unions are lacking in morality? Which had been done already I assume in the case of the Mormon's belief in multi-persons marrages.
Again I do not wish to take sides based only on my presonal opinions and so I have attempted to outline the pending case for debate purposes, being that is the purpose of this forum.
In other postings I have bashed Bush and ranted about why he should not try to change the consitution for religious or moral reasons, but this post I revisited it with a more open minded approch in order to look at what Congress might have to deal with at sometime during Bush's last four years.
Is it fair to take the Kerry stand and push it off on the local states who would have to have public votes on he matter? It is not fairly apparent that the churches could organize a lot more people to vote their way then what the gay community could organize with their small minority of people? Unless such votres were done city by city it is pretty much very predictable that whole states would lean towards a majority win for the churches and not in favor of the gay community.
So I do not see that dumping it on local state governments can really led to a honest and intellectual outcome, just an emotional performance of majority opinion, which the consitution cannot uphold because it is desgined to protect the rights of minority groups, although it is not yet clear if being gay is a minority group under the consitutional interpretation of groups as being by nationality, age, gender, religion, or race.
To attack this message as being anti-gay is unfounded because that would be as foolish as saying that this is a anti-Bush message. This message is about the the debate and the reasonings that might contiute it.
A one-liner emotioinal reaction to this message is not what I was looking for. |