This Is Very Important To Me

[LimeTwister]

I do agree on the fact that is going against what marriage was created for...but banning in the constitution should not happen.

I think the laws as they stand now are fine.  Call it whatever you want, I don't think it is anyone's job to tell someone else what they can or can not marry if, in fact, it is not harming them.  Now I can see if it was like banning prisoners from getting married...Oh wait! A prisoner can get married....hmmm...

[Will]

Ok... Joey... I'm gonna agree on you on this. This is no reason to amend the Constitution over this. It's a civil code for crying out loud, not something to go into the core of this country's legal system! Any actions on the matter should happen at the STATE level, not the FEDERAL one.

[Manda]

Im with Cece...*hides*

Manda

[KilgoreTrout]

Ok... Joey... I'm gonna agree on you on this. This is no reason to amend the Constitution over this. It's a civil code for crying out loud, not something to go into the core of this country's legal system! Any actions on the matter should happen at the STATE level, not the FEDERAL one.

but the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (article IV, section 1) says that if you're married in one state, other states have to respect that...if you're married in one state you're married in all of them, even if it's illegal in the state you're currently in - the actions of one state have affects for the others.

[Will]

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Yep, you are right. So, I guess we invoke Scott v. Sanford and say that any grant of marrage to a gay couple by a state is null and void for the same reason why a state couldn't declare a black man a citizen.

Hmm... a constitutional amendment affirming the right might not be out of the question. Current case law already prohibits it, so a denial would be kinda pointless.

[jlmusicchick]

ok, first off, will, i really wasn't trying to spark up some debate with you. I was merely stating the possibility that maybe what's written in the Bible isn't necessarily all of God's word. I'm not saying that's what I believe, or that it's a known fact or anything, but i'm saying that it's a possibility.

Limey - I get what you're saying, there are a lot of Bush supporters. But I know a lot of republicans who were Bush supporters who aren't now. So it's a toss up - personally i don't want him around next term, but i guess we'll have to wait until November to see how the rest of the country feels.

[Grakthis]

and if you agree with Bush preserving the moral fabric of the country, ignore the thread and vote for the second term in november.

Biggot.  WWJD, amirite?!?!?

Edit: @ All - Being a biggot is fine, if that's what floats your boat.  But even if you don't like "Fags" and you want them to be "punished" for their feelings (which is EXACTLY what this is.  Don't kid yourself with rewording.  This is a means of punishing a voluntary minority) fine.  You're just an asshole, but not neccesarily stupid.  IF you support a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT then you are both a biggot AND a moron.  Just, FYI.

[rosieposy87]

and if you agree with Bush preserving the moral fabric of the country, ignore the thread and vote for the second term in november.

 Its people like you that are making other's lives hell for something that is completely out of their control. Its people like you that are denying others' freedom and equality in a country that so relies on it. Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case. If you believe something, why do others have to?

 'Moral fabric'- what a weak defence. What is 'moral fabric' BV? You could argue that so many things have degraded 'moral fabric' in America: alcohol, plastic surgery, even other religions because they do not uphold your moral beliefs- but do you protest and whine against them? NO.

  Gay people deserve exactly the same rights as straight people. Call it something else but marriage if you like.

[kev222]

Edit: @ All - Being a biggot is fine, if that's what floats your boat.  But even if you don't like "Fags" and you want them to be "punished" for their feelings (which is EXACTLY what this is.  Don't kid yourself with rewording.  This is a means of punishing a voluntary minority) fine.  You're just an asshole, but not neccesarily stupid.

Despite you dictatorial assertion to the contrary, wanting to "punish" "fags" is hardly the only possible motivation people could have for wanting this ammendment. If, for whatever reason, people feel that permitting homosexual marriages will have a negative affect on the society in which they live then their support for this ammendment is not born out of some desire to punish gay people. Just as support for tougher immigration laws are not born out of racism.

The bigot accusation and it's relatives are banded around far too often in every area of debate. Anti-abortion is anti-choice, anti-profanity is prudish, pro-war is warmongering, those in favour stronger immigration laws is racist, supporters of animal testing are cruel, creationists are anti-science, those apposed to cloning and stem cell research are anti-health... the list goes on. I'm not trying to say whether I support the ammendment or not, just that the bigot accusation is a purely emotional argument and has no place in the debate.

-Kev

[kev222]

Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case. If you believe something, why do others have to?

Equally, why does Kev have to believe what you/others believe (that the bible is not inerrant and that he shouldn't accept it as the absolute standard for morality)?

'Moral fabric'- what a weak defence. What is 'moral fabric' BV? You could argue that so many things have degraded 'moral fabric' in America: alcohol, plastic surgery, even other religions because they do not uphold your moral beliefs- but do you protest and whine against them? NO.

Whether or not he protests those other things is irrelevant. Even if he gets drunk every night and has had plastic surgery every year, it doesn't make his arguments in this area any more or less valid.

-Kev

Edit: In case you're wondering I don't have an opinion on this, except that any homosexual "marriage" should definitely be seperate from marriage as a religious institution. I do agree with you that everybody should have equal treatment and the same rights, but as long as it isn't harmful to society (such as a prisoners right to freedom) and I don't know enough about what being legally married entails to have an informed opinion. I also don't know what good it will do to forcefully impose a belief system onto people. But it at least should be argued properly.

[tricia]

What cracks me up is that you're all DOWN WITH BUSH when Shelly posted an article saying John Kerry would SUPPORT THE SAME DAMN THING.  They're all against calling it gay marraige...

What REALLY cracks me up is that the most "liberal" state in the union has a law on the books SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE IN A CLEAR MAJORITY that states marraige is between a man and a woman.

I'm all for giving everyone their rights, God did say to love your enemies, treat others as you treat yourself, don't worry about other people's sins because you have your own problems, etc, etc, but the way I have grown up, marraige is sacred.  It is a religious institution.  And yes, I think Britney Spears made a mockery of that.  No, I don't have any gay relatives, but a girl who has been one of my best friends since I was 9 is bisexual.  I also have many other friends and acquaintances who are gay...kinda hard to avoid when 5-10% of the population is homosexual...Civil unions, whatever, doesn't bother me.  In fact, I think it's completely all right considering we have common-law marraige for heterosexual couples, why not for homosexual?  If they're seriously trying to make a go of it, what's the harm?  But calling it marraige is just not something I can deal with.

LMAO @ everyone all up in arms about the Constitutional Amendment.  Do you all know how hard it is to pass one of those things?  hahaha  Not going to happen.

OBTW, I am highly offended by the whole eye-rolling thing to electing Arnold for governor.  You know what?  I voted for Arnold.  You know why?  When Davis was govenor, my tution went up 30%.  300 dollars a semester.  Since Arnold has been govenor (long enough to institute a rate hike), my tution has strangely stayed the same.  Oh yeah, and my mom who got a bill for 600 bucks for her car tax, got another letter in the mail saying it was really only 200.

Some of us are capable of making decisions that benefit the people without taking morality or party lines into consideration.

[LimeTwister]

What cracks me up is that you're all DOWN WITH BUSH when Shelly posted an article saying John Kerry would SUPPORT THE SAME DAMN THING.

Not exaclty.

[tricia]

He said he won't support anything called gay marraige...

*rereads article*

Yep...no support of anything called gay marraige...

[Logikal X]

Yup Tricia, let them have their unionship, just dont call it "marriage"  


I wonder what the heck they could call it though

[Si]

I say

Let 2 people who really love eachother marry eachother if they want to.
A man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman,
who gives a shit??

Some are such narrow minded people
:headshake: