marriage Constitutional amendment

[acludem]

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?

 

[Moi]

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.

 

[acludem]

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
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.

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.

 

[wonderwench]

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.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by wonderwench
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.

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."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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!

 

[wonderwench]

I too like the idea of civil unions. Legal partnerships are governed by law - love is not.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
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!

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?

 

[wonderwench]

It's important to note in this discussion that marriage is a stabilizing influence in society which gives the government a vested interest in it's protection. From a biological imperative point of view, children raised in male-female two parent households have the best chance at becoming productive citizens. It does benefit society to promote traditional marriage. That doesn't mean that we cannot provide for alternative civil unions. I agree that the promotion of stable monogamous unions is also in society's interest - mainly from a public healthy perspective.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by wonderwench
It's important to note in this discussion that marriage is a stabilizing influence in society which gives the government a vested interest in it's protection. From a biological imperative point of view, children raised in male-female two parent households have the best chance at becoming productive citizens. It does benefit society to promote traditional marriage. That doesn't mean that we cannot provide for alternative civil unions. I agree that the promotion of stable monogamous unions is also in society's interest - mainly from a public healthy perspective.

Indeed. The question of kids raises an excellent point, one in which I can admitt that I am not qualified to answer. Personally I don't see what the problem is if the couple is loving, but if issue lies in something deeper psychologically than perhaps that should be taken into account.

As a side not, I'm not too sure how is the best way to promote monogamous relationships and marriage. I've heard of Bush's plan, but none of the specifics, but I hear it's only for traditional marriages, well i suppose i shouldn't be suprised... however there needs to be a program that promotes the same in same sex couples as the stakes are much higher!

 

[5stringJeff]

So what exactly is a civil union supposed to be, exactly? A marriage without a church blessing? Who can enter into it? Can me and my five college buddies all enter into one big civil union just for the tax and inheritance benefits? Would we be able to adopt kids for our civil union commune?

(incredulous sarcasm off)

Changing the name from 'marriage' to 'civil union' is only a ploy to make people think that it is something different, when in fact, homosexual activists want civil unions to be exactly like a marriage, the only difference being the sex of the two partners. IMO, this is not right. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle (yes, I opened that can of worms) does not entitle you to any kind of special right to a civil union with your partner.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Changing the name from 'marriage' to 'civil union' is only a ploy to make people think that it is something different, when in fact, homosexual activists want civil unions to be exactly like a marriage, the only difference being the sex of the two partners. IMO, this is not right. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

I agree!

 

[DKSuddeth]

I always thought that the constitution was designed to tell government its limits in dealing with the people, therefore, americans have any, and all, rights except that which the constitution says it does not. Would that not mean that since relationships, whether between same or opposite sex, are not mentioned in the constitution that the government has no authority over them?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Whether a married couple are of different genders or the same gender doesn't realy matter. If two people are involved in a loving and committed relationship, they should be permitted to express and validate that relationship through the institution of marriage. It's the "...family friendly..." thing to do.

It is a non-issue simply because it is being used in much the same way a matador uses his cape to distract a bull. It inflames the emotions, it distratcts from the real issue at hand. In the case of the bull, it is the sword used to end its life. In the case of the electorate, it distracts from the real issues such as healthcare, fair labor standards, housing, the environment...Issues of real importance to all of us.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Would that not mean that since relationships, whether between same or opposite sex, are not mentioned in the constitution that the government has no authority over them?

I never said that people couldn't have the relationship. But when you now give legal rights to that relationship, you're talking about a different issue. I don't think that homosexual relationships should be given any more legal standing than college buddies or coworkers.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Whether a married couple are of different genders or the same gender doesn't realy matter. If two people are involved in a loving and committed relationship, they should be permitted to express and validate that relationship through the institution of marriage. It's the "...family friendly..." thing to do.

If you want to have a loving and caring relationship with someone, that's great, more power to you. But that should not be placed on the same level as a marriage, which forms the basic building block of society - a family.

It is a non-issue simply because it is being used in much the same way a matador uses his cape to distract a bull. It inflames the emotions, it distratcts from the real issue at hand. In the case of the bull, it is the sword used to end its life. In the case of the electorate, it distracts from the real issues such as healthcare, fair labor standards, housing, the environment...Issues of real importance to all of us.

Well, you can blame 1) the Massachussets Supreme Court, 2) Howard Dean, for legalizing civil unions in Vermont, and 3) the homosexual activist agenda.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
If you want to have a loving and caring relationship with someone, that's great, more power to you. But that should not be placed on the same level as a marriage, which forms the basic building block of society - a family.



Well, you can blame 1) the Massachussets Supreme Court, 2) Howard Dean, for legalizing civil unions in Vermont, and 3) the homosexual activist agenda.

A family is defined as:

<i>"...All members of a social group who are living under the same roof. This definition includes couples, traditional families, lesbian and gay families, communal families, families with cohabiting parents, and extended families..." - <b>Mental Health Nursing: Fourth Edition</b>; Karen Lee Fontaine, RN, MSN, AASECT; J. Sue Fletcher, RN, ED; Addison-Wesley, 1995</i>

As you can see, the word "family" covers alot of ground. To artifically limit it to the traditional or conventional automatically disenfranchises and devalues any other form. By denying gays and lesbians access to the institution of marriage, they are thus deneid the stability and legal protections enjoyed by those of us, myself included, who enjoy the benefits and joys of marriage.

To state that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is in some way "protecting" the family is laughable at best. At worst, it is, as I have said before, a smokescreen to deflect voter attention away from issues of real importance.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I always thought that the constitution was designed to tell government its limits in dealing with the people, therefore, americans have any, and all, rights except that which the constitution says it does not. Would that not mean that since relationships, whether between same or opposite sex, are not mentioned in the constitution that the government has no authority over them?

Not exactly. The Constitution itself states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof" which are not contradictory to the Constitution are the governance of the country. Thus, the Supreme Court's entitlement to declare laws enacted by the federal government and/or state governments invalid if they are counter to the Constitution. Moreover, of the specific entitlements of the congress of the nation enumerated, congress has ultimate authority (as long as not contra to the constitituion). The states have the remaining powers, again, as long as they are not contrary to the constitution.

Thus, if the constitution does not specifically state that there is a protected class and the feds haven't enacted a law as such, it is permissable to make a law which denies same sex marriage. However, those in favor of such law are fearful that judges will again mis-read the constitution and declare such a law invalid regardless of the actual words of the constituion like they've done with abortion/affirmative action rulings. (hence the legislation from the bench arguments). Those who are strict constructionists do not agree with recent SC rulings. The only way for it to be SC proof, therefore, is to have a constitutional amendment specifically stating the country's wishes on the matter.