Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

[Severian]

Why?

 

Implicit in the institute of marriage is the assumption of sexual relations. (In fact, in most countries marriages can be annulled if you have never had sex with each other - no divorce required.) I don't think it is any business of the state what you get up to in your bedroom. There should be no requirement for me to have sex with my partner, enforced by the state.

 

Furthermore, I see no reason why a married couple should be given any tax breaks. Why are they more favoured than a couple who live together? Why should they have more rights than a couple who live together? In fact, why should they have any more rights than a brother and sister who live together, or two straight blokes who are best buddies and find it convenient (and pleasant) to share a house. (It seems rather bizarre to me that we only accept two men can share their lives if they are having sex.)

 

So, as Mokele said, I think we should leave 'marriage' as a religious or social institution with no legal ramifications. Each church or societal grouping can decide what it wants to call 'marriage' without interference from the state. They can then decide who qualifies, just as they decide who is accepted into their society. If a church does not want to 'marry' gay couples then that is up to them, and I would suggest to the gay couple that they find another church (or society) in which they feel comfortable.

 

Any rights which are now confered with a marriage 'contract' can instead be confered with a normal legal contract (which contains no assumptions about who you are sleeping with). (If you want to make it easier, the state could have a sample standard contract drawn up by its lawyers which people could then use if they want to keep lawyer fees down.)

[JaKiri]

words

 

This doesn't actually explain why you want marriage banned rather than de-encouraged. I follow the argument, and in some places agree, but surely banning is just restricting the rights of an individual in a different way?

[Severian]

This doesn't actually explain why you want marriage banned[/i'] rather than de-encouraged. I follow the argument, and in some places agree, but surely banning is just restricting the rights of an individual in a different way?

 

'Banned' is maybe the wrong word. 'Discontinued' may be better.

[Pangloss]

The Amendment failed to pass the Senate this morning, failing to even garner support from all the Republican members, much less the 5 Democrats it needed.

[bascule]

So who's the bigger asshole:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700929_pf.html

 

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

 

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

[Pangloss]

I heard something about this on the radio today and was pretty flabbergasted. That kind of rhetoric is usually kept firmly in check. Hell, I'd have to issue him a warning for posting something like that on our boards. One would like to think that the US Senate would maintain SOME level of decency.

[Sisyphus]

What's so bad about those quotes?

[Pangloss]

What's bad about them is the dismissal of legitimate political debate as "bigotry". I don't know about the citizens of Utah or Massachusetts, but when I voted I intended for my senators to use civilized, reasoned discourse in order to determine the best course of action for the country.

 

If they're going to flame each other like children who just got AOL accounts for their birthdays, then I'll be happy to hand them a pair of revolvers and point them at the nearest open field.

[bascule]

I do think bigotry underlies this whole debate, and I do think they are attempting to write principles derived from religious faith into the Constitution. They failed, so it's all moot now...

[bascule]

More fun quotes!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/index.html

 

"I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. "I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress."

[AL]

I'm guessing you're supporting the libertarian position that marriage should be solely religious/social, not civic/governmental.

That's my idea of a Marriage Protection Amendment. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of marriage, nor forbidding the consensual, private arrangement of such. Nor shall Congress attempt to define marriage for the people, particularly with glittering generalities such as 'heterosexual marriage is the cornerstone of all civilization and the fulcrum upon which the Cosmos pivots.'"

[padren]

I am sure the people who fought against the civil rights movement and women's sufferage also decried their opponents for calling it an issue involving bigotry.

 

 

They undoubtedly had their own charts, graphs, statistics and sacred traditions.

 

 

In the end though, the only measure can be secular and free of social engineering. (ie, not arguments of scripture, and not arguments of how to pressure citizens into breeding groups or other "social goals" of select engineers)

 

The only valid limiting factor on peoples' freedoms can be whether they hurt others and, if you are very non-libertarian...if they hurt themselves. I quite enjoy hurting myself, and really wouldn't want to deny anyone else that pleasure either.

 

I am yet to see a single example of how allowing gay people to marry hurts me or any other individual in this country. Offend their religious views...yes...offend their hardwired instincts on sexual attraction...yes, but harm....yet to see any evidence for it.

 

 

I honestly believe of a lot of resistance is bigotted in nature, with those people grasping at weak rationalizations because they can't believe that is the source of their feelings.

 

 

Genuine debate can be had, but they should not be based on arguments from ignorance and demonstrate how people are actually hurt by the activities they wish to ban. Then, we can have a conversation without the word "bigot" coming up.

[Severian]

I am yet to see a single example of how allowing gay people to marry hurts me or any other individual in this country. Offend their religious views...yes...offend their hardwired instincts on sexual attraction...yes' date=' but harm....yet to see any evidence for it. [/quote']

 

If married couples are given tax breaks in your country and you are single (so get no such tax breaks) then gay marriage (actually all marriage) hurts you because it makes them wealthier at your expense.

[Sisyphus]

What's bad about them is the dismissal of legitimate political debate as "bigotry". I don't know about the citizens of Utah or Massachusetts' date=' but when I voted I intended for my senators to use civilized, reasoned discourse in order to determine the best course of action for the country.

 

If they're going to flame each other like children who just got AOL accounts for their birthdays, then I'll be happy to hand them a pair of revolvers and point them at the nearest open field.[/quote']

 

You actually think there's a legitimate political debate? I'd be surprised if there were 20 senators who thought so. The point is the people who are against this say so openly. Why debate it as if "defining marriage" was really what people are getting excited about? Everyone in the room knows it's about finding a way to attack homosexuals, so why not discuss it as such?

 

If married couples are given tax breaks in your country and you are single (so get no such tax breaks) then gay marriage (actually all marriage) hurts you because it makes them wealthier at your expense.

 

Yeah, and not letting them vote would help us heterosexuals by giving us a proportionately larger say, but I think there's still something to be said for equality under the law. I'm all for "decodifying" marriage, too, but you can't possibly think a bigoted law is better than a fair one... can you?

[Severian]

Yeah' date=' and not letting them vote would help us heterosexuals by giving us a proportionately larger say

[/quote']

 

Voting is a right. Tax breaks are not.

[bascule]

Voting is a right. Tax breaks are not.

 

Heterosexuals deserve tax breaks and homosexuals do not because... why?

[Mokele]

I agree. The end goal is to ban marriage completely, but it seems rather foolish to legalize gay marriage and set up all the formalism to deal with such an institution just to ban it again.

 

Well, in the interim, they might as well enjoy equal rights.

 

On the contrary, I can see this happening within 10 years or so. In the UK, the married couples tax allowance was already abolished back in 2000, so the tax incentive of being married in the UK is gone. Now, the UK is already thinking about a system in which the rights of non-married cohabiting couples will be the same as those that married couples have (eg. hospital visitation, inheritence, rights to children etc). If this comes to pass there will be no legal reason for couples to marry any more. Maybe then the state can start minding its own business.

 

Well, it's not nearly as likely here. Aside from the fact that 'family values' rhetoric holds powerful political sway, married couples enjoy a *LOT* more rights (over 1000, actually, ranging from tax breaks to the right not to be forced to testify against your spouse), not to mention health insurance (which, were marriage nullified, many, many more people here would be without and unable to afford).

 

I think we should leave 'marriage' as a religious or social institution with no legal ramifications.

 

The problem is the 'leave' part. I agree that's how it should be, but at least on this side of the pond I don't see how it can become a political reality for a long, long time.

 

I heard something about this on the radio today and was pretty flabbergasted. That kind of rhetoric is usually kept firmly in check. Hell, I'd have to issue him a warning for posting something like that on our boards. One would like to think that the US Senate would maintain SOME level of decency.

 

I think Kennedy should be congratulated for telling the truth on the matter. And to Hatch, I'd reply "Yes, you are."

 

What's bad about them is the dismissal of legitimate political debate as "bigotry".

 

Except for the fact that it's *not* legitimate political debate, and it *is* bigotry. Civil debate is one thing, but let's call a spade a spade.

 

but when I voted I intended for my senators to use civilized, reasoned discourse in order to determine the best course of action for the country.

 

Then you have a much more optimistic view of the government that I do. I'm honestly surprised none have gotten into fistfights on the Senate floor recently; it's happened before.

 

To be thoroughly honest, I'd be happy with any debate at all, civil or not, rather than "I vote this because it'll help me get re-elected by placating my core or the special interests who've brided me."

 

If they're going to flame each other like children who just got AOL accounts for their birthdays, then I'll be happy to hand them a pair of revolvers and point them at the nearest open field.

 

I heartily agree, and think you've finally found a realistic and fun way to end 'big government'.

 

If married couples are given tax breaks in your country and you are single (so get no such tax breaks) then gay marriage (actually all marriage) hurts you because it makes them wealthier at your expense.

 

True, but that doesn't differentiate between gay and straight.

 

Is it wrong that I now want to reduce my tax burden by setting up a booth in front of the place that gives marriage certificates with a lie detector saying "Has your spouse cheated? Find out for free!"

 

Voting is a right. Tax breaks are not.

 

But equal rights under the government is a right too.

 

Mokele

[john5746]

I think marriage is very important to society(surprise, I am happily married). The most important thing to survival is breeding and the care of offspring. If you want to see what eliminating marriage would do, look at the poor black community in America. Single parents have a much harder time supporting their children.

 

Homosexual and interracial marriage are two different issues, as marrying an animal would be a different issue. I don't feel threatened in any way for gays to be married and think it would provide the same benefits to them as it does for heteros.

 

The fact that Bush doesn't propose a compromise with a civil union for gays makes me read BIGOT between the lines. He believes homosexuality is a sin, so of course he doesn't want to ascribe any support to it. He supports illegal immigrants more than homosexual citizens. If he did try to compromise, he would get hanged anyway. He is just drumming up support from his base, he knew it had no chance.

[Jim]

I am yet to see a single example of how allowing gay people to marry hurts me or any other individual in this country. Offend their religious views...yes...offend their hardwired instincts on sexual attraction...yes' date=' but harm....yet to see any evidence for it.

[/quote']

 

I would vote to allow gay marriage were I in a state legislator (which means I could never be in the Oklahoma state legislature); however, for many Christians marriage is a religious, as well as legal, institution. When you say it offends their religious views, you are saying that it violates the primary purpose of this institution for them. They would argue that the reason gays want marriage, not just civil unions, is to obtain that validation of their relationship.

 

When religious people say marriage is between a man and a woman they are speaking, usually, in a religious sense. I disagree with this POV but usually I do not second guess their sincerity. In this instance, I do because it is so blatantly political. Next we get a flag burning amendment etc. It smacks of desperation.

[Mokele]

The most important thing to survival is breeding and the care of offspring.

 

At 6 billion and growing, I think we can afford to de-emphasize that...

 

Homosexual and interracial marriage are two different issues

 

Not really; the exact same reasons for preventing gay marriage were trotted out 40 years ago over inter-racial marriage: arguements about tradition, the meaning of marriage, the morality of such unions, religion definitions and quotations, etc.

 

The point is that this arguement has happened before, and it was bigotry then, so it's bigtroy now. It's not a perfect analogy, I agree, but it's a potent one.

 

however, for many Christians marriage is a religious, as well as legal, institution. When you say it offends their religious views, you are saying that it violates the primary purpose of this institution for them. They would argue that the reason gays want marriage, not just civil unions, is to obtain that validation of their relationship.

 

True, but they need to realize that they cannot impose their traditional and religious definitions on the rest of society. If many people define marriage as for procreation, would be it right to ban infertile couples from marrying?

 

Plus, their feelings have been manipulated by unscrupulous religious power-mongers (and quite well, given the power such individuals now have). Aside from the issue that biblical literalism is theologically worthless, there's only one passage that specifically condemns homosexuality, and it's surrounded by passages that forbid seafood, working on sunday, and wearing clothes of blended fabrics while openly endorsing slavery.

 

The bigotry is pre-existing; they're just using religion to justify it.

 

In this instance, I do because it is so blatantly political. Next we get a flag burning amendment etc. It smacks of desperation.

 

I've actually heard that the religious right are pissed off about it; they resent the implication that they can be so easily manipulated.

 

Mokele

[padren]

If married couples are given tax breaks in your country and you are single (so get no such tax breaks) then gay marriage (actually all marriage) hurts you because it makes them wealthier at your expense.

 

The marriage tax break, I believe, is done because couples share their finances generally. You can make a case to dissolve the marriage tax break, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of disallowing marriages that some people find less "proper" in their eyes.

 

So, how does the tax break issue apply to gay marriage specifically? Is it any different than interracial marriages, or marriages between sterile couples?

[padren]

I would vote to allow gay marriage were I in a state legislator (which means I could never be in the Oklahoma state legislature); however' date=' for many Christians marriage is a religious, as well as legal, institution. When you say it offends their religious views, you are saying that it violates the primary purpose of this institution for them. They would argue that the reason gays want marriage, not just civil unions, is to obtain that validation of their relationship.

 

When religious people say marriage is between a man and a woman they are speaking, usually, in a religious sense. I disagree with this POV but usually I do not second guess their sincerity. In this instance, I do because it is so blatantly political. Next we get a flag burning amendment etc. It smacks of desperation.[/quote']

 

Their relationship doesn't need validation from Christians, just the secular Republic they live within and support with their tax dollars.

 

I can't see any ground for the religious argument any more than I can see the FDA being offensive to Islamic and Jewish people due to their approval of pork based meats. Does allowing pork to be classified as a proper editable meat and non-kosher foods "cheapen" or "threaten" religous peoples' choice to eat kosher and non-pork meats?

 

 

I can not see any more sense to a legal ban on gay marriage for religious reasons than I could on a legal ban of pork for religious reasons.

 

The only way such a ban on pork could ever get passed, is if people simply thought those who ate the stuff were wankers anyway who's views didn't matter...ie, bigotry.

[Pangloss]

You actually think there's a legitimate political debate? I'd be surprised if there were 20 senators who thought so. The point is the people who are against this say so openly. Why debate it as if "defining marriage" was really what people are getting excited about? Everyone in the room knows it's about finding a way to attack homosexuals' date=' so why not discuss it as such?

[/quote']

 

They weren't "discussing it as such", they were throwing pies in each other faces. The next round would've been a talent show, followed by a decision via "Deal or No Deal". If that's what you want from your Senate, fine, but in my view the way to elevate the debate in this country is to insist that it be elevated, not demand that it be LOWERED.

 

When it comes to civil discourse, I don't particularly care what the issue was or the relative strengths of their positions -- I expect them to BEHAVE. And I'll just point out that you feel the same way, or you wouldn't be able to continue to return to this forum and post on a regular basis. You maintain a civil tone and abide by our rules because you feel it's worth it. Doesn't matter what the subject is.

 

This "bigotry" nonsense... it's REVPREZ behavior. And you all know it. So stop acting like it's something to be cheered, open up another browser window, go to this web site, and EXPLAIN IT TO THEM.

 

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[padren]

I think the real problem is a lot of people who are against gay rights feel that the gay lifestyle can be encouraged and discouraged, and that openly accepting it can encourage it and mean potentially loosing their sons and daughters to it.

I think those are the emotions a lot of them bring to the table, and it only clouds the issue.

 

 

Pangloss, I am curious how you define bigot, and how you would size up the differences between this civil rights struggle and others that clearly contained bigotry among the opposition.

 

 

I can tell you strongly feel that it is not an issue of bigotry, to the point of thinking most of us must see it that way too deep down. I can't help but to feel bigotry is a factor, but I do respect the positions you take and would be interested in knowing how you see the seperating of the lines.

[bascule]

This "bigotry" nonsense... it's REVPREZ behavior. [b']And you all know it.[/b]

 

Well, when it comes down to it, the only argument I'm really seeing from the supporters of the ban is that it will, in some way, undermine the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage (and, apparently, a 50% divorce rate does not)

 

This is suitible justification to deny people the same benefits regardless of their sexual orientation?

 

Is there something I'm missing here? Because the application of the word "bigotry" here seems apt. They're attempting to write religious doctrine intolerant of a particular social demographic into the Constitution.