The New Morality - Part One.

[Technosoul]

Part one - gay marrage.

The Supreme Court cannot amend the consitution, they can only make judgements based on a clear interpretation of the document.

Only Congress can vote to make amendments that would clear up any confusion conerning a particular aspect of the document. And it is normally a President who would ask Congress to review it from time to time if adjustments are thought to be needed for future court cases.

President Bush asked Congress to look into the possible need to clear up what contitutes a marrage. He was just asking them to take a look at it and make a determination by their votes. The President has no power to demand they change or amend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but it is his duty to take a leadership role in making what ever recomendations he sees fit. Nothing really wrong with that, because those documents spell out what our moral codes are politically and legally.

Under the present status of those documents the gay population cannot be viewed as a "minority" because they are not a different race or nationality of peoples, they are not a mainstream or up-start religion, they are not a different kind of sexual gender - they are in fact still male and female as far as any medical examination of their physical body would indicate. And not of a different age bracket. There is nothing in the those legal documents that would set them apart as a minority that can be protected as such. I do not know if phycholicial differences are really protected under those documents outside of the right for free speech or relative to humanitary concerns for mentally disabled folks.

So far, Congress has ruled in the past that marrage is one on one, between one man one woman and that groups marrages are unlawful even if that is a religious concept as it was with the Morman church.
Which ruling does not directly effect the topic of gay marrages.

So President Bush wants Congress to visit the topic and come up with an answer, which is basically not a moral question, but one having to do with the rights of people with phycholical differences concerning sexual and legal contracts relative to marrages. Known as sexual preferrences. (hope I spelled that right?)

Is marrage the same between to people of the same sex as between a man and a woman - is marrage based on sex or for some other reason?
Example, two males could be roomates and live together for a long time and not have any sexual interests in one another, they just have a bond based on common interests or compatibilty when it comes to sharing the cost of living. Now should those long time friends have the same rights as a married couple to get into an emergency room, to sign for a emergency operation, to be able to settle their finances in a court of law if they decide to split company with one another? etc. And so that same understanding about gay men and women would seem to also be applicable. But simply as a marrage or as only a legal and binding contract, or as a document that would dictate a "power of Aturney" to another non-family member. There are already a number of legal ways to give a non-family member certain rights or to create contracts between partners who share the same busness wealth. And way to sign over authority to non-family members to make choices on your behalf should you become disabled.

But what then does the word "marrage" mean relative to anything political or legal? How can a marrage certificate automatically assume certain legal rights for those invoved? And should not those assumed rights be legally obtainable by anyone who can get some preacher to say the "I do's" and bless them. Does religion dictate the meaning of that word and does mainstream religion rule the roost in who can get married - assuming they both are within the range of being able to give full and adult consent. (note: animals and small children cannot lawfully give consent). Well - not in the case of the Mormons who wanted to have the right of one man who could marry many women.
In that case religion did not have the authority to mandate the meaning of the word marrage. But did mainstream morality concepts play a role in that pre-established case? Would Congress also not have to revisit that issue along with the topic of gay weddings? With the additional concept of group marrages between the alternative life styles of the "Swingers". And how could they write the complex rules concerning the authority of group marrages when it came to devorces, settlements and hospital emergency cases?

And lastly, can we depend upon our modern Congressmen and women to have the abilty to comprehend the intellectual and complex idealism of that review or possible amendment? Can we trust our modern Congress to have the same foresite as did our founding forefathers?

Technosoul.

[Compugasm]

Stop using the homosexuals as your scapegoat to change the constitution and create second class citizens!

[Technosoul]

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.

[Technosoul]

Attention forum monitor. I would like to request that my messges on the post be moved ot the section for "Society and Rights" as I now think that would be a better place for this topic. If you agree with that you have my permission to conduct a "moved" status for this message chain. Thanks.

Technojsoul.