79 replies to this topic

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Groo the Wanderer]

leave it to the states. this is not a power reserved to the feds per the Constitution.



then...those that allow the abomination can be kicked out of the union. let them form their own country.

[thessalonian]

I don't see how as a Catholic one can say it should be left to the states. It is left to God and he has spoken!

[kujo]

I don't see how as a Catholic one can say it should be left to the states. It is left to God and he has spoken!

Really? God said gays can't enter into a personal, secular contract with each other? Interesting. What page in the Bible was THAT?!?

[kujo]

Leaving this issue "to the states" will create a slave-state/free-state dilemma. You can't decide enfranchisement in the voting booth. It needs to be consistent from state to state, one way or the other.

[qfnol31]

I can't vote in this because the answers are too narrow. I believe our Constitution should be followed so long as it is not in contradiction to Natural Law. The Constitution on this particular matter isn't very clear, which means it probably ought to fall to the states.

However, I think that our country won't function well as a country if we leave it up to the states.

As a Catholic I want marriage defended in its truest form in the best way possible. I think leaving it up to the states is asking for a disaster, as recent Maryland law has demonstrated, but I don't think this simply as a Catholic. I think this as an informed American.

[Ice_nine]

The state has already hijacked the word marriage. I seem to recall someone posting a blog about how maybe we as Catholics should recapitulate on terms of vocabulary, and start referring to real marriage as "holy matrimony." It was a good link if anyone remembers wth I'm talking about, but I tend to agree that would should probably give up the term.

because what the state calls marriage is basically indistinguishable from a civil union, except semantically "marriage" seems to have more legitimacy. Which is dumb really. That's partially why the LGBT movement wants gay "marriage" so the term will help or affirm the legitimacy of sexually deviant relationships. And seeing as how many people look to the state as the moral arbiter and and caretaker, it will probably work out that way.

So I think the real answer is neither the state nor the fed have ever gained so much power to define marriage. Not sure if that can be untangled at this point, or how it could play out. But yeah . . .

[Hasan]

leave it to the states. this is not a power reserved to the feds per the Constitution.



then...those that allow the abomination can be kicked out of the union. let them form their own country.

This was almost a reasonable and thoughtful position.

[Hasan]

Leaving this issue "to the states" will create a slave-state/free-state dilemma. You can't decide enfranchisement in the voting booth. It needs to be consistent from state to state, one way or the other.

I can see the judiciary striking down state provisions that ban gay marriage. And they should, in my opinion. But I don't see how or where the legislature and executive would have the power under the constitution to positively dictate this issue.

[kujo]

I can see the judiciary striking down state provisions that ban gay marriage. And they should, in my opinion. But I don't see how or where the legislature and executive would have the power under the constitution to positively dictate this issue.

Agreed. Hence, the amendment to the Constitution defining state-sponsored marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.

[cmotherofpirl]

So if a brother and sister wish to marry or a mother and son that is perfectly permissible, as long as they consent.

[Hasan]

Agreed. Hence, the amendment to the Constitution defining state-sponsored marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.

Why only 2?

[kujo]

So if a brother and sister wish to marry or a mother and son that is perfectly permissible, as long as they consent.

Incest laws are already on the books.

[kujo]

Why only 2?

TBH, I don't really have an answer to that question. The circumstances and arrangements of other peoples' marriages aren't really anybody's business.

[Hasan]

Incest laws are already on the books.

So are anti gay marriage laws. Her point is a valid one. I'd say yes. Incest is not a serious problem. If a mother and son or brother and sister want to have sex we really can't stop them and we don't make it illegal for a couple likely to have a child with down syndrome to get married, so why incest.

Conservatives want to protect their understanding of marriage. I'm fine with that. Let's do away with state marriage and leave marriage to private institutions. Let the state confer civil unions on whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them.

[qfnol31]

Agreed. Hence, the amendment to the Constitution defining state-sponsored marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.

To what are they consenting?

Incest laws are already on the books.

The wording of the Constitutional Amendment you proposed would supersede all such laws and make them null and void.

[kujo]

To what are they consenting?
The wording of the Constitutional Amendment you proposed would supersede all such laws and make them null and void.

As I am on my phone, I was going for brevity with my response. As such, I'd think it goes without saying that the amendment would prevent mothers and their offspring from getting hitched. Since, ya know, I think differing parties can all agree that 2 gay dudes wanting to commit to spending the rest of their lives together is NOT THE SAME thing as incest.

[Anomaly]

So are anti gay marriage laws. Her point is a valid one. I'd say yes. Incest is not a serious problem. If a mother and son or brother and sister want to have sex we really can't stop them and we don't make it illegal for a couple likely to have a child with down syndrome to get married, so why incest.

Conservatives want to protect their understanding of marriage. I'm fine with that. Let's do away with state marriage and leave marriage to private institutions. Let the state confer civil unions on whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them.

The problem seems to be after creating civil unions, then letting that " union" be a family/parent unit. I have no qualms with any two or eleven adults creating a civil union for a mutually agreed upon sharing of rights, wealth, and shared responsibility.

However, when it comes to a family unit that will raise children, I have serious concerns. I also acknowledge that heterosexuality does not guarantee good parenting.

[qfnol31]

As I am on my phone, I was going for brevity with my response. As such, I'd think it goes without saying that the amendment would prevent mothers and their offspring from getting hitched. Since, ya know, I think differing parties can all agree that 2 gay dudes wanting to commit to spending the rest of their lives together is NOT THE SAME thing as incest.

I'll give you the brevity on the phone since I hate how replying works on my phone.

Otherwise, the amendment would have to be more specific than that. But again, to what exactly are they consenting?

[kujo]

Former President George W. Bush's pollster for his 2004 re-election, Jan van Lohuizen, has put out a memo to Republican operatives suggesting a shift in the way the GOP discusses same-sex marriage:

In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:
“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:
“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals:
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.