Gay Marriage Ban Proposal Likely to Fail in House Vote

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:11 pm**

The "freedoms" statement didn't apply to marriage, actually. That sentence was talking about general African-American discrimination, not marriage, thereby making my post non-hypocritical.
Marriage is a privelage, yes, in the sense that it is not a right granted to anyone. Now, it's not discrimination because marriage simply isn't a union between two consenting adults. Marriage is, as Puck discussed early, the union between a man and a woman, plain and simple. Give them civil uinons with the same privelages. I'm fine with that, but to go out there and retroactively change a long-held tradition, which, believe it or not, does affect religions with the fact that the definition for marriage is changed, clearly violating the free exercize clause.
We're not denying homosexuals the ability to marry; we're just saying that we're not going to let you do it in an alternative way. If you allow this form of alternative marriage then you have to, under equal protection, allow all forms of alternative marriage, thereby confusing the situation too much.

But again, I'm for the people deciding how their state should define marriage, not the government forcing such a radical idea on the people. What's wrong with letting each individual state decide its own fate? Nothing.

teya · Commander Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 423

La Forge · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:56 pm**

Politics and religion don't mix and this is just one of those cases. Your definition of marriage is a religiously-defined definition of marriage, as Valathous pointed out.

Lord Borg · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:36 pm**

Yeah, those are my thoughts, as that the definations being used are religious ones. Eh, theres not alot we can do right now that I am aware of, I just think this is stupid.

teya · Commander Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 423

Hitchhiker · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:39 pm**

If marriage is "between a man and a woman", where does this leave intersexed people?

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:58 pm**

Either way, I guess...

I found quite an interesting case for why gay marriage is unconstitutional. I think it's a decent case, for the most part, and puts forth some good thoughts about it. It includes a case about the separation of church and state, which I agree with. Some of this is a shakey argument, but in essence I think it's a decent case.

You can find the article here.

Arellia · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:08 pm**

I found too many holes in that article to address them all, so I'll take the seperation of church and state thing that you mentioned. I didn't understand... how is this a violation of that seperation? A church can choose who they will and will not marry--this is obvious, a friend of mine divorced and tried to remarry in the Catholic church but they turned him down and he had to go elsewhere--how is this forcing anything on religion? The only thing I see is religion forcing itself on the government, which I usually would call a "bad thing." It's an option, a legal option, that has nothing to do with religion in the least.

The other is the issue of man and woman being balancing, or some darn thing, which is another leaky argument. So they do, and so I think it's nice and important that the people balance in a marriage, but really, gay people usually balance each other out, because one person may be more feminine, the other more masculine. If two people fit, they fit, gender aside. This is totally opinion.

As for the child support thing, last I heard, most sperm donors never find out who their sperm went to. I've never heard of a child support case with that, but maybe I'm out of some loop.

Lord Borg · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:18 pm**

I didn't read it, I got all I wanted from the brief over RM said. I find it appaling that some people can considar Gay marrage UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just HOW does it affect freedom if two people of the same gender can marry? IT dont, at least it don't effect MINE, because.. well, I don't carer enough to pay attention.

Republican_Man · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:37 pm**

In short, I see it as a violation of the concept of separation of church and state in the sense that it is the government intermingling with religion to such an extent that it's actually changing the definition of a term that is a religiously-defined term. The government should not be getting involved in redefining terms that are based in religion. In that sense it could be seen as unconstitutional.

This is the one general concept that keeps a guy I know from supporting gay marriage. Otherwise he would be one of those people out there trying to legalize it, but instead he believes it's a violation of separation of church and state, thereby making it invalid.

La Forge · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:55 pm**

This is simple.

Does gay marriage affect you, RM? Does it affect you, personally? No...I'm sure as hell that it doesn't...almost. Anyways...Why care? I mean...if homosexual people want to marry, let 'em. It doesn't affect you, so stay out of it.

This is ridiculous. I mean...there is no reason to oppose this. Where is the harm in it? Are homosexual individuals going to take over the world? No...they just want to be married. That's all. No harm.

Plus, as many others said, this is not an important issue. We have other MORE IMPORTANT things to worry about than gay marriage. This is silly.

Arellia · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:14 pm**

Lord Borg · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:17 pm**

Indeed, because if I intereperate correctly by those terms then...wouldnt that mean that I couldn't marry my GF if she was a differnt religion? Or a differnt Skin color? (She don't btw, just examples)

A handful of decades ago, if you werent the same skin color as the person you intended to marry, you couldn't marry, how is that differnt? Isn't IMO.

La Forge · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:20 pm**

If that's how you think, RM, am I not allowed to marry, because I'm an aethiest? Uhhh...yeah...I can. And I don't believe in any religion. So...Gay people should be able, too.

Republican_Man · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:23 pm**

You may be able to marry in the different realms of marriage--state-sponsored marriage, etc--but it doesn't change the fact that the term marriage is still a religiously-defined definition.
But, look. None of you are changing my mind and I'm not changing your minds, so I think that unless someone makes a comment that I feel really warrants a response from me, I'm gonna tear myself away from this discussion. I'm sure you understand that sentiment, La Forge.

Hitchhiker · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:41 pm**

Republican_Man · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:43 pm**

This is why I think it should be up to the people as opposed to the government.

Republican_Man · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:47 pm**

Actually, I urge you all to research Baker v. Nelson, a case that pretty much stated that it was not unconstitutional for gay marriage to be banned under a measure passed by the people of Minnesota.

Hitchhiker · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:57 pm**

Republican_Man · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 pm**

Not so sure about that, but regardless, the only reason I would support such an amendment would be in order to prevent the Supreme Court from overriding the will of the people, who have consistently rooted for the banning of gay marriage.
But then again, there are other ways to go about that, such as saying if X amount of states adopt similar forms of legislation the Supreme Court can't override it, or something.

Hitchhiker · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:06 pm**

Republican_Man · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:08 pm**

lol. Well, if the people vote for it, my point is, and over and over the citizens of a state support it, the Supreme Court should not knock it down.

Hitchhiker · **Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:11 pm**