Poll For Conservatives:

[Dr Grump]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

 

[Oddball]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, it's not a yes/no question.

1) I'm against the state being involved in any marriages...The state-issued marriage license is what people pimping for gay statutory marriages are after.

2) If gays wish to draw up their own common law marriage agreements, it's no skin off my ass.

 

[Charles_Main]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

I voted yes, But I must clarify That I want to see it done right. Either by States making it legal individually or by A federal Constitutional Amendment, and not by Judicial Fiat.

 

[Jeremy]

Yup.

 

[Avatar4321]

Gays can marry. They just dont seem to like the people they can marry.

 

[jillian]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

I voted yes, But I must clarify That I want to see it done right. Either by States making it legal individually or by A federal Constitutional Amendment, and not by Judicial Fiat.

you don't need an amendment to permit equal protection under the law. equal protection is already guaranteed.

and appropriately defining the term equal protection to include gays is not 'judicial fiat' it is constitutional construction and its what the court is supposed to do.

why should anyone wait around for a constitutional amendment to enforce a right they already have under the law.

 

[Revere]

States restrict marriage for lots of reasons. If you're already married, and want to get married again, you're not entitled to "equal protection under the law."

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Gay marriage is pointless. The only reason they are into it is for the gravy of how the tax structure is set up.

Allowing gays to marry makes sense like allowing ducks to eat pork makes sense. Marriage is about guaranteeing the interests of any children produced of the union. (Not all heterosexual couples have or want children, of course , but they are a possibility. ) It is also there to protect the interests of the parties involved because of financial things. Wives do give up a lot to get married. Gays don't need the protections of marriage, they won't produce kids in the marriage, and the only point is to score tax gains.

Not a good enough reason, really.

 

[Charles_Main]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

I voted yes, But I must clarify That I want to see it done right. Either by States making it legal individually or by A federal Constitutional Amendment, and not by Judicial Fiat.

you don't need an amendment to permit equal protection under the law. equal protection is already guaranteed.

and appropriately defining the term equal protection to include gays is not 'judicial fiat' it is constitutional construction and its what the court is supposed to do.

why should anyone wait around for a constitutional amendment to enforce a right they already have under the law.

Sorry I simply do not think the Fed is suppose to have the power to dictate to the states on issues they were not given power over in the Constitution. That is why I favor the Amendment route.

With an Amendment we can clarify not only that Gays can Marry and all states have to recognize that. But we can insure that Gays victory is not then used to fight for Polygamists rights or Incest rights for example. After all if you prove that People can marry each other despite sex, with out clarification. You have to know that that Polygamists at least will be next in line demanding equal protection.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sorry I simply do not think the Fed is suppose to have the power to dictate to the states on issues they were not given power over in the Constitution. That is why I favor the Amendment route.

With an Amendment we can clarify not only that Gays can Marry and all states have to recognize that. But we can insure that Gays victory is not then used to fight for Palimony rights or Incest rights for example. After all if you prove that People can marry each other despite sex, with out clarification. You have to know that that Polygamists at least will be next in line demanding equal protection.

Polygamists should be given equal protection...

 

[Jeremy]

Sorry I simply do not think the Fed is suppose to have the power to dictate to the states on issues they were not given power over in the Constitution. That is why I favor the Amendment route.

With an Amendment we can clarify not only that Gays can Marry and all states have to recognize that. But we can insure that Gays victory is not then used to fight for Palimony rights or Incest rights for example. After all if you prove that People can marry each other despite sex, with out clarification. You have to know that that Polygamists at least will be next in line demanding equal protection.

Polygamists should be given equal protection...

Should NAMBLA?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

the poll is a pidgeonhole question.
"Marriage" is defined as a civil and religious union between one man and one woman.
I support the right of committed gay couples to enjoy certain benefits such as , right of inheritance, right to beneficiary of life insurance policies, right to be covered by their partner's employer supplied health coverage.
This can be achieved through a "civil union" ceremony performed by a justice of the peace or other ordained person willing to perform the ceremony.
My objection to this and my only objection is do not call it "Marriage". because it isn't.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sorry I simply do not think the Fed is suppose to have the power to dictate to the states on issues they were not given power over in the Constitution. That is why I favor the Amendment route.

With an Amendment we can clarify not only that Gays can Marry and all states have to recognize that. But we can insure that Gays victory is not then used to fight for Palimony rights or Incest rights for example. After all if you prove that People can marry each other despite sex, with out clarification. You have to know that that Polygamists at least will be next in line demanding equal protection.

Polygamists should be given equal protection...

Should NAMBLA?

No...

 

[Dr Grump]

the poll is a pidgeonhole question.
"Marriage" is defined as a civil and religious union between one man and one woman.
I support the right of committed gay couples to enjoy certain benefits such as , right of inheritance, right to beneficiary of life insurance policies, right to be covered by their partner's employer supplied health coverage.
This can be achieved through a "civil union" ceremony performed by a justice of the peace or other ordained person willing to perform the ceremony.
My objection to this and my only objection is do not call it "Marriage". because it isn't.

So you are in the no basket...

 

[jillian]

Sorry I simply do not think the Fed is suppose to have the power to dictate to the states on issues they were not given power over in the Constitution. That is why I favor the Amendment route.

With an Amendment we can clarify not only that Gays can Marry and all states have to recognize that. But we can insure that Gays victory is not then used to fight for Palimony rights or Incest rights for example. After all if you prove that People can marry each other despite sex, with out clarification. You have to know that that Polygamists at least will be next in line demanding equal protection.

Polygamists should be given equal protection...

Should NAMBLA?

why do that? a relationship between two consenting adults is not the same as victimization of minors.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Homo's should not be allowed to marry like normal man and women do.
2. This will come back to bite the culture, and The Nation as a whole, if permitted.
3. When you start calling perversion a good thing, it will affect all points of society.
4. This poll will be skewed, when liberals vote.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[The Rabbi]

Poll is pointless as gays can already marry. No one is stopping them.
I had a tenant here in TN who had a "marriage certificate" with her girlfriend up in her apartment. They were married. I didn't see the police breaking down the door and arresting anyone.

 

[Samson]

someone needs to draw a line.

Marriage is socially acceptable.

Queerness is socially deviant.

Therefore, Queer Marriage is not socially acceptable.

QED.

 

[del]

Sorry I simply do not think the Fed is suppose to have the power to dictate to the states on issues they were not given power over in the Constitution. That is why I favor the Amendment route.

With an Amendment we can clarify not only that Gays can Marry and all states have to recognize that. But we can insure that Gays victory is not then used to fight for Palimony rights or Incest rights for example. After all if you prove that People can marry each other despite sex, with out clarification. You have to know that that Polygamists at least will be next in line demanding equal protection.

Polygamists should be given equal protection...

Should NAMBLA?

they already are. they get prosecuted just like every other non affiliated shorteyed motherfucker and with any luck, spend a very short time in prison.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

I voted yes, But I must clarify That I want to see it done right. Either by States making it legal individually or by A federal Constitutional Amendment, and not by Judicial Fiat.

you don't need an amendment to permit equal protection under the law. equal protection is already guaranteed.

and appropriately defining the term equal protection to include gays is not 'judicial fiat' it is constitutional construction and its what the court is supposed to do.

why should anyone wait around for a constitutional amendment to enforce a right they already have under the law.

No. The courts are in place for redress. Courts do not exist to make law. That is the job of legislatures. That is clearly in the US and all Constitutions of each of the 50 states.

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment
The Development of Substantive Due Process

Although many years after ratification the Court ventured the not very informative observation that the Fourteenth Amendment “operates to extend . . . the same protection against arbitrary state legislation, affecting life, liberty and property, as is offered by the Fifth Amendment,”34 and that “ordinarily if an act of Congress is valid under the Fifth Amendment it would be hard to say that a state law in like terms was void under the Fourteenth,”35 the significance of the due process clause as a restraint on state action appears to have been grossly underestimated by litigants no less than by the Court in the years immediately following its adoption. From the outset of our constitutional history due process of law as it occurs in the Fifth Amendment had been recognized as a restraint upon government, but, with the conspicuous exception of the Dred Scott decision,36 only in the narrower sense that a legislature must provide “due process for the enforcement of law.”

The 14th Amendment provides for "equal protection under the law"..
In the above annotation from the Lousians butcher case( see link) there is no gurantee of "equality" under the law...
Issues such as gay marriage MUST be decided by the legislatures of the States. The courts can offer redress to parties which claim to be harmed. However no single judge or panel of judges should be permitted to supercede the legislative process.
That is how our government is supposed to work.
No one or no group is entitled to a "short cut" just because they feel strongly about an issue and want a resolution "now".