marriage Constitutional amendment

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by acludem, Jan 21, 2004.

  1. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Regardless of whether or not someone supports or rejects gay marriage, surely we must see the folly of a constitutional amendment for such purposes. The only time we've ever constitutionalized such an individual moral issue was Prohibition, and that was a miserable failure. Amending the Constitution should be an absolute last resort. There is no need for this.

    What do you all think?
     
  2. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I certainly think the only way to stop activist judges who invent rights is to amend the very document from which they claim such rights stem, i.e., the Constitution.
     
  3. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    What? The justices in Mass. that made the decision that has the right so up in arms ruled only that the state constitution and law does not define marriage as between a man and a woman and referred it to the legislature. That's all. They didn't say gay marriage was legal or correct. This decision was at the STATE level, based upon the STATE constitution of Massachussetts (originally written by John Adams). We don't need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for this.
     
  4. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Definitionally and theologically speaking it is simply not possible for a homosexual couple to be married. I doublchecked a couple dictionaries and it is still in there as an act between a man and a woman. I am not a religious person, but from what i'v learned of the Bible the institution of marriage was created to produce a commitment to produce offspring. Something a homosexual couple can't do. So from that perspective it really doesn't matter what i think. I can't change what it means to be married.

    That said i have no problem w/ same sex couples spending their lives together. Unfortunately it just can't be called marriage.

    I agree with Moi in that the purpose of making it a constitutional ammendment would be to stop this legislating from the bench.
     
  5. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Nowhere did either your post or mine mention Massachusetts. You made a post suggesting the folly of a Constitutional amendment about supposed morality issues and I responded.
     
  6. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The only reason for a government to have a say in marriage is that it is a contractually legal relationship. ie, the two parties are legally responsible for the debts and commitments of the other, have shared property and other rights such as hospital visitation. If the only issue were the private relationship between the two parties, the government should not be involved.

    I see no reason why two adults shouldn't be able to form a legally binding family unit. The term marriage need not be involved - just a mechanism to specify the legal rights and responsibilities. I could see instances in which platonic friends may wish to do so - two little old ladies who are good friends and roommates.
     
  7. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    I like your idea. Why can't we call all binding relationships between two consenting adults a civil union giving the appropriate governmental rights associated with marriage, except leave the idea of whether to sanctify it in the eyes of god with the churches. I know there are some holes to fill such as those with respect to children.

    However avoiding theological questions aside and trying to be a bit pragmatical, would it not be prefferable to promote monogamous relationships amongst homosexuals. I'm sure the benefits in terms of reducing STD's amongst homosexuals would outweigh cost of allowing such unions.

    As a great Canadian prime minister said, and I'm sure i've stated this before, "The government [of Canada] has no business in the bedrooms of nation."
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I think using the term "marriage" is actually very important to the activists, you know, so as not to stigmatize and injure the self esteem of homosexuals. But I love your idea. A civil union. perfect. And it's true, a marriage does not make a civil union, as many of us are all too aware!
     
  9. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I too like the idea of civil unions. Legal partnerships are governed by law - love is not.
     
  10. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    Well too bad for the activists is what i say. Marriage has and always will be a religious institution. Some will sanctify it, some won't, but one think i know for sure is that the government sure doesn't have that kind of authority. So just sidestep the whole issue with civil unions. Can't see why people couldn't agree with that, but I'd love to hear if people don't?
     

Share This Page