Gay Marriage Ban Proposal Likely to Fail in House Vote

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:50 pm**

It's not the governments place to decide something like this.

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:54 pm**

And how not? By law marriage is a privelage, not a right. The government has every right to keep traditional marriage if it wishes, especially since there's a force trying to legalize it. Though I would agree with there being a vote in every state by the people to determine the definition of marriage, which overwhelmingly leans in the favor of tradition. Only problem is, the Defense of Marriage Act keeps being trumped by the Supreme Court, which presents a problem.

So, I suppose I might actually agree with your statement.

Lord Borg · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:30 pm**

Really, an amendment? That's pretty stupid. I hope it dont pass.

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:32 pm**

The only reason I would support a Constitutional Amendment relating to gay marriage is because we need a measure preventing the Supreme Court from overturning state decisions, as it keeps doing.

Lord Borg · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:37 pm**

which says something in it self about the decision itself. Sorry, but it's rather childish to make it an amendment so the courts can't over turn it.

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:39 pm**

But it's not. The courts have taken power increasingly away from the people. It says a hell of a lot about our courts more than the decision.

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

i read somewhere that the traditional marriage groups are going get the states to call a Constitutional Convention and bypass congress.

Here we go:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/15/constitutional-convention-gay-marriage/

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

IntrepidIsMe · **Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:20 pm**

I must admit it seems rather superfluous to have a governmental body through which we're (tax paying voters) supposedly represented and when they do their job, we're unhappy with the results, so we bitch. And yet we have the Electorial College, an institution that made sense let's say.... 200 years ago, but today serves no purpose. But when it makes us happy, then we love it.

These are amazing times in which we live.

Hitchhiker · **Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:53 am**

I find it ironic that the government has proposed two Constitutional amendments that limit one's freedoms under the guise of protecting tradition.

I'm also glad that poverty, the war on terrorism, North Korea, crime, healthcare and all those other things have all been taken care of, because I have faith that the government would deal with such burning issues that affect day-to-day lives before they go on to squabbling over definitions.

Arellia · **Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:59 pm**

^ Go Hitch go. I get annoyed hearing about abortion and gay marriage over and over when it doesn't get things changed, and those two issues aren't even close to the most dire issues of the day.

Lord Borg · **Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:05 pm**

Yeah, we have so much else going on right now, laws on Gay marrige is frankly so trivial, especialy right now.

TrekkieMage · **Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:35 pm**

Hm.

Limiting the rights of American citizens, versus the fact that just how many countries have launched bombs in the past six months?

I think our priorities as a country are just a little bit skewed at the moment.

I forget who said it on the floor of which part of Congress, but on of the elected officials said something really good to that effect. I'll have to track down the name from my parents at a more reasonable hour

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:12 am**

For the last time, marriage is not a right. I am getting sick and tired of people consistently saying that banning gay marriage is limiting one's rights or preying upon one's rights. Well, that's just not true, because marriage is a privelage, not a right. It is not a right, so to say that this is an aspect of "gay rights" or that banning gay marriage is preying upon one's rights is just factually innacurate.

And you know what? I happen to think that the Supreme Court topping the American public when it shouldn't be is a big deal, thank you very much.

teya · Commander Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 423

^ That's exactly the same argument that was used a generation ago to argue against interracial marriage. Were the courts wrong in knocking down those bans too?

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

teya · Commander Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 423

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

teya · Commander Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 423

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:29 pm**

Regardless of what his faith says, this is a sacred tradition that must be kept and the government should either not regulate, or do something to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning the will of the people. If the government forces change in the milenia-old tradition and definition, it essentially forces religions to adopt same-sex marriages, violating the first amendment, which is why it should be up to the people before the government. That way the government isn't forcing an idea that could be associated with religion upon the people and religions when it's not supposed to.
The only reason I support a constitutional amendment is because of the radical courts, which consistently overturn the will of the people despite Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act, which is the reason why the last amendment was proposed--to protect the Defense of Marriage Act, which protected the states' rights to determine whether or not gay marriage should occur, which is consistently opposed in election after election.

teya · Commander Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 423

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:35 pm**

Denying blacks the freedoms that every other individual had was wrong, period. When it comes to interracial marriages, there is a difference. That is denying two people of the opposite sex that happen to be of different colors from doing what every other opposite-sex couple was doing. The only difference was that one was black and the other was white. I don't see the equation, and no, I don't believe that judges were activist then, aside from acknowledging a myth, for the first time in history, of separation of church and state. But they are now.

Jeff Miller · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:42 pm**

It's nice to see all the crap going on in the world and the one thing that still gets most peoples feathers ruffled is that of two people of the same sex wanthing what everyone else does. Funny.

Valathous · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:59 pm**

Hey, RM? I thought you had said marriage was a privilege. Now suddenly because it's dealing with opposite sexes just of different colours, it's a freedom? That was a hypocritical post.

Anyways, even if you do consider it a privilege, to deny it to an entire group just because they go against a religiously create definition is, in my opinion, discrimination and isn't that a no-no?