marriage ammendment

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Isherwood You really don't know history, do you?

Specifically what history?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Saint Vern He wants no such thing. He wants our right to govern ourselves by principle to be respected,

LOL... The right to govern ourselves? The right to govern ourselves would mean everyone being free to do as they wish so long as it did not directly harm anyone else. This would mean gay marriage would be completely legal (since no person has ever been able to show me how gay marriage would hurt anyone). Passing a law making an agreement between consenting adults illegal is the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITTE of allowing us to govern ourselves. Your comment would be laughable if it wasn't so scary in its ignorance.

and there is no "right" to corrupt the definition of "marriage" as places like MA have done.

Yeah, if the queers get married, something terrible might happen to the institution of marriage, like over 50% of marriages ending in divorce! The horror! [/sarcasm]
Can gay people really screw up marriage any worse than straight people already have? You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Outlaw divorce. Of course, lawmakers would never do that for an obvious reason - read your Congressional bios: a MAJORITY of them are divorced.

Destroying marriage as you want is no damage to anyone's "rights", as the people in question are just as welcome to marry as ordinary folks. Every young dude is welcome to run out and find a gal to marry him, regardless that he..."likes" whatever he does.

You have the right to marry someone you love. A gay person does not. Violation of liberty due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
- Sexuality is a suspect classification (Lawrence v. Texas and others)
- Laws which discriminate on a suspect classification are subject to strict scrutiny.
- Strict scrutiny means the government must show a compelling overriding reason to have the law (the law must be absolutely essential) and must show that the law is narrowly tailored to address the problem.

Laws against gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment because they are subject to strict scrutiny and there is no essential need for them.

But all of this can be done legislatively, as there is the Constitution no accommodation of your desired perversion of "marriage",

There is no provision in the Constitution for federal criminal laws, or the DOT, or many other things which I am sure you agree with. Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too.

and all we need is clear language saying that no state need honor any other state's degenerate definition of "marriage".

Oh, do we? Hmm someone needs a Con Law lesson (in addition to that which i've already given)...

Quote by: United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Oops. Damn that little Constitution getting in the way of your discrimination again.

Marriage is one he plus one she, and there is neither need nor space for compromise.

Says you.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: tivodan1116 LOL... The right to govern ourselves? The right to govern ourselves would mean everyone being free to do as they wish so long as it did not directly harm anyone else. This would mean gay marriage would be completely legal (since no person has ever been able to show me how gay marriage would hurt anyone). Passing a law making an agreement between consenting adults illegal is the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITTE of allowing us to govern ourselves. Your comment would be laughable if it wasn't so scary in its ignorance.

You are completely wrong. The Constitution does not allow a perversion of the definition of marriage such as you want. And yes it is very easily proven that homo "marriage" DOES hurt society. For starters the devaluing of legitimate real marriage means the destruction of families and society as a whole. And by the way, having a court stuff an edict down the people's throats does not constitute government of the people, by the people or for the people.

Rather than amend to clarify this for the hard-of-understanding we can just legislate the exception that the Founders clearly did not expect us to need, but then most of the destruction of society that people like you celebrate was unthinkable to them. And if that is not good enough for you, I am willing to start a petition in the state legislature. We can amend without endangering the Bill of Rights the way the left wants, simply by passing the amendment state by state without opening a convention to amend.

[RickSp]

Ah Vern, you demonstrate that you know as little of the Constitution as you do of history. The 9th and 10th Amendments, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" respectively, clearly leave matters such as marraige to the states and/or the people.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: RickSp Ah Vern, you demonstrate that you know as little of the Constitution as you do of history. The 9 and 10 Amendments, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" respectively, clearly leave matters such as marraige to the states and/or the people.

But you demand that the people not have the right to protect themselves against the degeneracy of distorted "marriage". Interesting. Oh...and you saw that I pointed out how the Founders did not provide for either a perverse definition of "marriage" or an expansive reading of the Constitution. Read again to see how we can get the amending done.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Saint Vern You are completely wrong.

I have a law school education in Constitutional interpretation. You do not. I'd bet on you being the wrong one here.

The Constitution does not allow a perversion of the definition of marriage such as you want.

The Constitution is not about "allowing" anything. The Constitution is about creating the federal government as a government of limited and specific jurisdiction (or "enumerated powers"). Anything that the Constitution does not say the government can do, it cannot do.

And yes it is very easily proven that homo "marriage" DOES hurt society. For starters the devaluing of legitimate real marriage means the destruction of families and society as a whole.

This is your opinion, not proof. Give me proof (shouldn't take long if it is "very easily proven"). Show me, for example, a scientific double blind study that shows that families that live next to gay couples have higher instances of domestic violence. And how is the whole institution of marriage doing, by the way? What harm could letting people get married do to, say, the divorce rate?

And by the way, having a court stuff an edict down the people's throats does not constitute government of the people, by the people or for the people.

This comment demonstrates that you obviously lack a basic understanding of how our government operates or how the court system functions. I cannot be bothered to try to explain it to you, so i'll abbreviate: Ruling laws unconstitutional through judicial review is the power of the courts. This power is well established. If your statement above was true, schools would still be segregated and interracial marriage would be illegal. Homosexuality is merely the "Negro" of this generation.

Rather than amend to clarify this for the hard-of-understanding we can just legislate the exception that the Founders clearly did not expect us to need, but then most of the destruction of society that people like you celebrate was unthinkable to them.

"People like me"=libertarians, if you must know. I don't "celebrate" anything. I don't not-celebrate anything. I don't care if a man wants to marry a man, or if 5 people all want to marry each other, or if a man wants to marry a blow-up doll. It does not affect me or anyone else outside of the consenting relationship, so it should be allowed.

And if that is not good enough for you, I am willing to start a petition in the state legislature. We can amend without endangering the Bill of Rights the way the left wants, simply by passing the amendment state by state without opening a convention to amend.

Again, you do not understand the basic workings of our system of government. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution in the document itself. No other procedure is valid. Furthermore, it does not require a "convention" of any kind. It requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, and a simple majority of 75% of the state legislatures.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Saint Vern But you demand that the people not have the right to protect themselves against the degeneracy of distorted "marriage". Interesting.

What do they need protecting from? Whatever legal contracts consenting adults agree into should be legal so long as they only concern those adults. Since it is nobody's business but your own who you marry, your marriage only concerns the people you marry. Should be legal. Very simple proposition.

You still have not proven why people need to "protect" themselves from the degenerency of "distorted marriage"... Furthermore, you still have not shown how homosexual marriage would be any more damaging to the institution of marriage then heterosexual divorce already has been. I assume you're in favor of outlawing divorce?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Saint Vern Neither is it a "democracy". Thus "the will of the people" does not define the law. The thing to do is pass legislation relieving any state from any obligation to recognize or accept gay "marriage" in other states. Maine does not have to extend to "married" gays the rights of married people when such gays come for a visit from MA, supposing that ME would so legislate.

I totally agree 100%! It's just a shame the media never bothers presenting this option.

It's the same old routine where once a government policy is created, the merit of it is rarely ever questioned later, even when it causes problems. Instead another layer of patches is placed on top of it and it just keeps piling up without going back to the root of the problem.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Kyran America is not a theocracy. This amendment is not constitutional. The constitution limits the government, not people. With that said, let me be clear that I believe marriage is a function of religion. It is not necessary to the role of the state. My recommendation is that marriage be deregulated and delegislated.

Morality is legislated by government, and this has to do with society's morality.

Religion and morality go hand in hand, but morality is something the states, and feds can get into and do, and will.

This was tried in the 80's and failed. I think it was the 80's, ERA. The Equal Rights Amendment didn't pass.

Less and less heteros are getting married and having children first, and then maybe they might get married. I think it's to fleece the government for the Earned Income Credit. The woman or man can get federal aid, and the man can keep a crummy job, or in some cases a very good job.

Lots of things are false in our society. Trying to make marriage all encompassing just seems bogus to me. This is not what people want, and they have a right to have this opinion. Marriage is a very traditional thing. It's always been one man one woman, and that is really hard to envision being changed forever.

I don't think a civil ceremony is the answer either, cause that's still marriage. I think possibly people who want to cohabitate can get a license, just like marriage, and it would be renewable after say 5 yrs. They would have all the benefits of being married in those five years, and then if they choose not to renew Wala! they don't have to. Anybody could do this. That sounds easier to me. No need for divorce. See I think the lawyers want more marriage, so they can have more divorces, and more income.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Saint Vern He wants no such thing. He wants our right to govern ourselves by principle to be respected, and there is no "right" to corrupt the definition of "marriage" as places like MA have done.

No he doesn't. Most Americans are opposed to gay marriage (although less so with each passing year), but not to the extent they'll vote to amend the Constitution. Never happen. Bush simply wants the issue on the table during a congressional election year, to force legislators to go on record either opposing or supporting it with a vote, and thus giving his only remaining constituency, the religious right, a winning wedge issue to use in the election.

Quote by: Saint Vern Destroying marriage as you want is no damage to anyone's "rights", as the people in question are just as welcome to marry as ordinary folks. Every young dude is welcome to run out and find a gal to marry him, regardless that he..."likes" whatever he does.

Gay marriage does not 'destroy' marriage. How is your parent's marriage, or your marriage, threatened by it? The only thing that bugs you is that it legitimizes gay people and their relationships, which in your mind, are evil by definition.

Quote by: Saint Vern But you demand that the people not have the right to protect themselves against the degeneracy of distorted "marriage". Interesting.

Protect them from what? How does a gay couple threaten you or your family, other than attacking your wounded sensibilities of how other people should be living their lives?

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Morality is legislated by government, and this has to do with society's morality.

Except homosexuality is not a moral issue, it's a biological one, artificially and incorrectly elevated to a morality by fear and ignorance. To the contrary, it's the discrimination against people who were simply born to be what they are that's both cruel and immoral.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Religion and morality go hand in hand, but morality is something the states, and feds can get into and do, and will.

Indeed. When the issue of the morality of slavery divided this nation, religion and the Bible stood with slavery. And when the issue of the rights of women became an issue in America, religion and the Bible stood with the oppression of women.

.

[Boetie]

Marilyn Monroe posts: Religion and morality go hand in hand, but morality is something the states, and feds can get into and do, and will.

Who was Jehovah? A being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust

Who was Abraham? An insane barbarian patriarch who married his sister, denied his wife and seduced her handmaid; who drove one child into the desert to starve and made preparation to butcher the other.

Who was Jacob? Another patriarch, who won God's love by decieving his father, cheating his uncle, robbing his brother, practicing bigamy with two of his cousins, and committing fornication with two of his housemaids.

Who was Moses? a man who murdered an Egyptian and hid the body in the sand, a man who exterminated whole nations to secure the spoils of war, a man who butchered in cold blood thousands of captive widows, a man who tore babes from the breasts of dying mothers and put them to cruel deaths, a man who made orphans of thirtytwo thousand innocent girls and turned sixteen thousand of them over to the brutal lusts of a savage soldiery.

What was David? A vulgar braggadocio, a traitor, desiring to lead an enemy's troop against his own countrymen, a thief, a robber, a liar, uttering wholesale falsehoods to screen himself from justice.

Who was Paul? a religious fanatic a Jew and a Christian. As a Jew in the name of Jehovah, he presecuted Christians, as a Christian, in the name of Christ, he persecuted Jews and both as a Jew and a Christian in the name of both Jehovah and Christ, he practiced dissimulation and hallowed falsehood.

Who was Bush Jr? a man who wears God on his sleeve, lied a country into an unneccessary war, killed and brutalized innocent people that had nothing to do with 911.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Saint Vern But you demand that the people not have the right to protect themselves against the degeneracy of distorted "marriage". Interesting.

Another bad joke, Vern. I am a happy married heterosexual with some fine kids. I feel no need to "protect" myself against the degeneracy of distorted 'marriage'." What a bizarre construct.

The only folks I feel a need to defend myself against are the crazy fundies who want to shove their hateful dogma down my throat. Their "family values" are not the values of my family.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Impenitent will the democRATS embrase the gay marriage rulings that their judges in taxachusetts and the activist mayor of san fran is passing out?

It looks like your "preznent" has decided (Hes "The Decider", he's always wrong, but he sure is decisive) not to "embrase" the constitution, yet again. Look at old numero uno:

1st Ammendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....

and explain to me how the republiTARDs got appointed as Gods spokesmen? Did not the same God create gays? Does the government have any constitutional footing to ban gay churchs from performing whatever rituals they feel complies with His expectations for them?

If Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, why should an imposter president have any more power than congress? Today:

Raw Story President Bush backs federal marriage amendment RAW STORY Published: Saturday June 3, 2006 President Bush backed a federal marriage amendment in his Saturday radio address, and announced plans to meet with religious leaders on Monday. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society," said President Bush. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." "A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs," Bush explained. "Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America." Although the constitutional amendment most likely won't have enough votes to pass the Senate, Bush is being criticized from both sides for his stance.

Personally I believe gays are kinda creepy, abnormal. But if two freaky people feel like they want to be committed to each other "til death do they part", then, so be it.

Why should this be an issue? Because it distracts from the slaughters "over there", that are committed in our names. Mass murder is OK, but dont let fags have the rights of married people.

[jennyb]

no way, the marriage amendment should not be passed...... who is the decider here.. to me, i see the bible deciding these things.... the bible is not a good reference for this subject... there are to many people with to many different beliefs for the bible to be used to dictate someones life.... i cry FOUL

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: jennyb no way, the marriage amendment should not be passed...... who is the decider here.. to me, i see the bible deciding these things.... the bible is not a good reference for this subject.

Okay. So it is you against the Founders.

[eburchelli]

Quote by: Kyran let me be clear that I believe marriage is a function of religion. It is not necessary to the role of the state. My recommendation is that marriage be deregulated and delegislated.

Kyran has the right idea to deregulate and delegislate marriage. Personal behavior that is not a criminal act is not and should not be Constitutionally mandated. A marriage amendment is a total disregard for our right of privacy derived from the 4th Amendment. Using this approach was tried before during prohibiton and did not accomplish the intended purpose and had to be repealed.

Whether marriage is considered personal behavior or not, for the government's purpose it's its
desired control of social issues that bypass privacy rights guaranteed in the 4th Amendment. Taxes and benefits are another issue that plays to many people, where being married and/or with children, means special privileges that single individuals can't access.

Our rights are individual rights. Why should government mandated marriage confer more rights on couples than available to individuals? Granted this goes beyond the proposal of an Amendment that identifies marriage as between one man and one woman, but in the long term, any government interference in personal behavior, affects all of us and usually not for the better.

[Jack]

Here's an interesting opinion from a source I'd least expect it to come from:

The government - federal, state, or municipal - should not be in the marriage business in the first place, and limited-government Republicans should be the first ones to make this argument. Who lives with whom is not the business of the state. Who does whom and how is not the business of the state. What you choose to call the one or ones you love is not the business of the state. The only interest that the state should have in the interpersonal relations between consenting citizens of the state is in the merging of personal property, which is all that a marriage certificate really is - two sole-proprietorships merging into one entity. As such, the nature of the proprietorships should have nothing to do with their merger, save any antitrust rules that may apply. Likewise, it should not matter to the state if three or more proprietorships choose to merge into a single entity. From the state's point of view it should be nothing more than a matter of assigning a tax identification number, not an issue of morality inasmuch as taxes are (relatively) amoral. Folks want to pool their resources? More power to them. What they do behind closed doors? Their business and their business alone - the state need not affirm or reject it because it in no ways pertains to the state.

This is the same person who states,

I believe homosexuality to be an abomination before God, detestible in its essence and sinful in its substance, so if the question is whether or not I support homosexual marriage then the obvious answer is "No" - I don't support homosexual anything as I will not endorse sinful lifestyles, be that homosexuality, adultery, theft, murder, lying, gluttony, etc. That said, as much as I oppose the "homosexual agenda" I all the more oppose those who would stir up hatred against homosexuals for two reasons. First, it's sinful - ungodliness in service of noble goals sullies the ends of those means. Second, it is self-defeating when one understands the nature of the fight against the homosexual agenda - by attacking homosexuals the Right keeps homosexuality in the public discussion, familiarizing people with homosexuality in a way similar to how prolonged and repeated exposure to violent images familiarizes and desensitizes people to violence. For these reasons alone the Republican folly in the Senate should be ceased immediately.

http://oscar-in-louisville.redstate..../3/16554/46099

[gr8fuldaniel]

And then theres this tid-bit

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ June 4, 2006 -- More on George W. Bush's "Sanctity of Marriage" gay marriage constitutional ban. George W. Bush's marital problems have just taken another turn for the worse. Apparently, Mr. Bush has not only engaged in an extra-marital affair with a member of the opposite sex who is also a senior member of his Cabinet, but also a member of the same sex. WMR received the following release this morning from Leola McConnell, Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada (who has been endorsed by WMR). McConnell is a one-time professional dominatrix. "President Bush's speech to the nation Monday. If he doesn't say he's a gay American or at the least a bisexual one then he shouldn't be making one at all. And the notion that it would be in regards to writing bigotry into our nation's Constitution is reprehensible. Too bad it isn't me doing the rebuttal because in 1984, I watched him perform (with the enthusiasm of homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally. I am the woman this website (bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com) speaks of that has been posted on the net nearly two years now. None of this would be the business of anyone but President Bush's little ruse to save his failed presidency by using DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] to divide Americans one from the other has to be exposed as the act of a desperate closeted homosexual man. The only crime in being GLBT is in the hiding. The President needs to come clean with the American people about his own past sexual behavior before he tries to besmirch the humanity of people in search of sincerely committing to the same bonds of matrimony he's afforded. He violated his own vows of monogamy having a homosexual affair with a long time family friend of whom his wife had no knowledge. His hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. I had planned to run for governor of Nevada without going into any of this but his planned nationally televised address to the nation makes it necessary for me to address his attempt at division in as public a way as he picked to try this Bushification of reality regarding same sex marriages. Sincerely, Leola McConnell Liberal Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada"

The same reporter has witnesses on staff at the Mayflower, that laura Bush has moved out of the WH.

Condi and her husban.... er, the moral high grounder preznent.


The above were taken on the way to Camp David last week. (About the same time as Laura Bush moved out of the WH.) If there are any catfight pics in the Rose Garden, I will post them here, in the "Sactity of Marriage" thread.

You know how you "Just Know" when a pair have bumped uglies?.....





Hey, anyone know how Southern Babtists and redneck NASCAR fans feel about inter-racial sex and homos?

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ June 1, 2006 -- UPDATED -- Rocky shoals for Bush marriage? Informed sources Inside the Beltway report that First Lady Laura Bush has established temporary residence in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC as a result of a tiff with President Bush over an extramarital relationship involving her husband. Mr. Bush's tryst is said to involve Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It is not known how long Mrs. Bush plans to remain at the Mayflower, however, her security detail has been present at the hotel during hours when the First Lady would normally be residing in the White House. While she was National Security Adviser, Rice, who has never been married, referred to George W. Bush as "my husband" before she corrected herself and said, "President. Bush" Rice was speaking at a dinner hosted by New York Times bureau chief Philip Taubman when she made her "husband" remarks. WMR is tracking the Laura Bush story. First Lady reportedly discovers that "The Decider" decided to violate his marriage vows -- moves out.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Isherwood I all the more oppose those who would stir up hatred against homosexuals

You new best pal missed a point, bud: There is nothing resembling "hatred" in wanting to protect the insitution of marriage, and the only "hatred" on the issue is demonstrated by the likes of Rosie O and the rest of the America-hating leftist activists. In fact the opposite motive moves us who stand for decency and righteousness. Namely we want the nation to survive (which is the opposite of what the other side wants) and we want to help the "gays" escape the pathology in which they are trapped. You do not lead folks away from destroying themselves by making it easier for them to do so. They have freedom to want whatever appeals to them, but they do not have freedom (under our system of government or the Natural Law on which it is based) to destroy the USA in the process.

:-)

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: eburchelli Kyran has the right idea to deregulate and delegislate marriage. Personal behavior that is not a criminal act is not and should not be Constitutionally mandated. A marriage amendment is a total disregard for our right of privacy derived from the 4 Amendment.

Oh. Then you will be quick to tell Chuck Manson and Teddy Bundy--Oops!--that they were within their freedom to decide for themselves how to behave per the alleged "right of privacy" that, by the way, does not exist in the Fourth Amendment.