Is a Constitutional Amendment necessary or what?
 

Here in the United States of America there has been quite a controversy
About the institution of Marriage and to whom do we afford this right.
Is it possible to have a “Marriage” between two people of the same sex?
Should same sex domestic partners be made to have the same rights and responsibilities that we as a society hold to heterosexual couples?

Personally I am clear about what I feel.
As lexicon, I feel that the word “marriage” should be reserved to the union between a man and a woman. That is the point where the discrimination should end.
If same sex couples wish to declare their undying love for each other then there should be a new nice warm and fuzzy name to describe that union.
They should be held to the same standards of legal rights and responsibilities and given the same respect for their relationship that we would afford a heterosexual couple.
Given the specter of divorce why anyone would want to do this willingly is a mystery to me.
Any opinions??

I'm never short on opinions...but I'll limit myself to a question this time. It's a simple, if open ended one....why?

Why on earth should marriage be limited to that which exists between a man and a woman?

Because, honestly, I've heard a lot of reasons...and none of them make sense.

I think the least that should be extended to gay couples is the ability to establish the legal equivalency of marriage...but why make it a "seperate but equal" thing? After all, that didn't do anything but stigmatize people in the past.

Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals nor do I have the time in my life to spend a great deal of energy worrying about what others choose to do with their lives, just so long as it doesn't affect mine. Therefore, I don't have a staunch opinion on this matter, and normally I'd say leave them be to do as they will. That said, I do hope that Bush signs the amendment banning gay marriage for the simple fact that he will have ostrasized a rather large segment of the voting public thus losing a great deal of votes come November. Perhaps this will be a great way to get him out of office, which is imperative to the welfare of this country.

My opinion (although some won't want to read it):

What the hell is wrong with it? The divorce rate these days is higher than a cat's back, and who are WE to say who can be married and who can not be married. I say that if gays and lesbians want to get married and live a happy, tax paying, joined, legal life then what the heck are they doing wrong??

People are just not up for change and some of our politicians are still living (and making laws) like it is 1950. What they don't understand is that the vows you take when you are married have nothing to do with whether you have a penis or vagina, they have everything to do with whether or not you love, cherish, respect, yadda yadda, the person standing next to you. And if these people can say "I do" to that and mean it - THEN LET THEM!!!

the u.s. has laws against discimanation this amendment will
break them laws and break the constitution youre fore fathers
had to fight for freedom for all not just those who are like you.
all the argements i have heard against same sex marriages
are almost al ways about religon or that its aways been like this
first civil marriage has nothing to do with the church secondly
this is the same argement that segragaton was allway like this
bush and arnie are steping on the rights of americans about one
in ten (10%) of ther voters are gay then there is ther familys
and friends try it bush we will march for equal right ten percent
can keep you out of office failing that we will take you to the
u.n. court of human rights the uk goverment have had to change there stand thanks to e.u.court of human right wont to be next
bush :mad:

Short and to the point...Government need's to stay out of people's bedrooms and worry about running the country!! Focus on..I dont know capturing Osama Bin Laden maybe!! That's just my opinion. Everyone should have freedom to choose how they live!!

i think everyone shud have the right to marry. im totally for gay and lesbian marrage and want to know what the hell cud be wrong w two ppl who are in luv declaring it and all that jazz

~nikki

Great responses all!
The sort of the life affirming thinking one might expect from our little group.

Still I ponder, Is the joining of a man and a women
the same as the joining of a man and a man
or a women and a woman?

I say not exactly.
Therefore there should be a way to differentiate by word , not discrimiante by deeds.

South, there is a word..... "Civil Union" but it doesn't let my insurance from work cover the woman I love. It will kick any assets I have back to my parents and my DW will be stuck with a $70,000 house and about 40 pets of various species(about half of them mine) and knowing my parents, she won't get ANY help.Not only that, while some women/men turn to the church for help in their time of woe and need, even the church wouldn't be able to come to help, they just~for the most part~can not overcome their problems with homosexuality although it has become overly obvious even within their own doors, painfully obviously even. I have to say that my feathers were a bit ruffled at the "Warm and Fuzzy" part of your statement but I know what you mean. I never in my life thought of getting married, it was always a "handfasting" in my mind but of course that could be just due to a difference in religon.


Side note: nuns, monks those kinds of people usually refer to themselves as married to god, hmmmmmmm monks are men.... god is usually portrayed as male...... WUH_OH!


okay enough of me running my mouth and looking stupid

Fun Fact: my job has no insurance or benefits........


Always
Kyttn

Excellent point Bama! My tax return only gives me the option of MARRIED filing joint....not UNIONIZED filing joint.:shrugs:

>warm fuzzies< thats the first time I think you've ever told me I was right in public >grin<

South, in MHO the Admenment would not pass, so let them go ahead and have their fun and we can watch it died just like ERA

Bamma---
Holy polygamy Batman... God is a Bigamist!
No wonder some priests feel justified by cheating on God with young boys....
I never liked that expression "married to God"
Get real. Priests Married to God? Now that would screw up a 1040 form royally if they filed jointly wouldn't it?

Scarecrow--you ever get the feeling that this is yet another Bush Administration "weapon of mass distraction"?

Lil- LMAO "Unionized" loveit! that is exactly why we need a warm and fuzzy name...perhaps "HOFFAED"?

A gay or lesbian marriage wouldn't be the same as marriage between a man and a woman? I offer the observation that it could be precisely the same.

The reasons my gay friends (specifically 2 friends in mind who wish to marry, I don't pretend to speak for everyone) want to get married are precisely the same reasons that my hetero friends have. What they want out of the relationship are companionship, commitment and sharing that I want eventually.

The argument I see put forward about how it would be different (elsewhere, folks here are apparently much smarter ;)) is that my gay friends aren't getting married to have kids. Well, neither are my hetero friends. Some because they've already got kids...and in one case, because they know that she can't have them.

So simply, no...I don't think there's a difference between gay and hetero marriage. Other than in the minds of people who need there to be a difference....and I don't honestly understand why they need something like that to be true.

Baffled.....

G

Keep It Simple!
 

It seems that the uproar about gay marriage is a politically correct declaration of homophobia. The marital status of the people next door has no direct effect on me, so why should I care?

On the other hand, with our modern society's track record on marriage, ANY marriage these days has only a 50/50 chance of lasting. One thing is for sure, should there be legalized marital unions for homosexuals, I sure would love to be a divorce lawyer. My potential clients just increased by 50%.

After all the rhetoric, I am still uncertain how I feel about this issue. As a a compromise, I feel that new powers and privileges should be added to Civil Unions to elevate the rights of gay & lesbian couples equal to heterosexual couples.

As long as equal protection under the law is provided, what matter does it make whether the word, "marriage", is used.

"I now pronounce you husband & wife"
"I now pronounce you husband & husband"
"I now pronounce you wife & wife"
"I now pronounce you top & bottom"
"I now pronounce you man & man"
"I now pronounce you woman & woman"
"I now pronounce you bull & queen"
"I now pronounce you dyke & femme"
"I now pronounce you fucker & fuckee"

Geez, What happened to the "Keep it simple" principle?

[soapbox]So far the main argument I have seen in favor of a constitutional amendment is, "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman." So it boils down to, "It's been that way for a really long time so why on Earth would we change it?"

People said the same thing when slavery was legal.

I've also heard that it argued that it isn't right because marriage is about family and a same sex couple cannot conceive children on their own.

This logic suggests a we should also ban sterile men and women from being married. Oh... and what if a couple just don't want children?

There is NO reasonable reason why same sex couples should not receive the same benefits as hetero couples. If these marriages are allowed it will not have an effect on the marriage of a hetero couple. So what's the problem?

Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion. [/soapbox]

In regards to what Divot said about President Bush losing votes come November,it is not going to happen, in fact quite the opposite. I'll explain, the majority of homosexuals usually vote democrat so it would not be Bush losing votes,they would not vote for him anyways .Also the majority of America still believes in the Constitution and that marriage should be only between a man and a woman thus giving President Bush even more votes come November. So it will be Bush in 2004 and I will feel more safe in this great country knowing he's our leader. I mean come on think about it ,if it wasn't for President Bush we might all have turned 5000 degrees at some time as the result of these coward terrorists. Wonder why we have not been attacked again? Its because we have a leader that did something about the problem unlike the previous administration.

To me, this is simply an issue of stigmatization. I find it horribly ironic that the same Bible-thumping hypocrites who say "all homosexuals are promiscuous" are now bitching about protecting the "institution" of marriage. Should they not be for something that would cut down on all the alledged promiscuity!? If this was an issue of discriminating on the basis of race, then it would obviously be wrong, but because it is based on someone's sexual preference it's considered ok.

This strikes me as just another place that the government has absolutely no business sticking its nose yet insists upon doing it anyway. Whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, it should enrage you that the U.S. government, for all that it preaches about liberty and equality when it serves its purpose, is now presuming to tell people who they can and cannot marry.

Apparently I should not be allowed to marry my boyfriend since I do not want to have children...

This is a totally political move to cover up past failures and cleanse George W.'s slate. Don't fall for his shit!!

1. "Allowing gays to marry diminishes the institution of marriage and harms the traditional family values"

Unmigated bullshit.

NO ONE is harmed by allowing a same sex couple marriage. NO ONE. To claim that couple A, who might be a single man and a single woman are somehow diminished in their relationship by allowing couple B, who for example are two men to marry, speaks nothing of how B harm A: but, rather of how A are so insecure of thier relationship that they have to worry about B.

2. "Marriage has always been about a single man and a single woman relationship"

Unmitigated bullshit. Even among the most extreme fanatics of Judeo/Christain/Islamic practice, this is a demonstrably untrue statement.

Banning same-sex marriage is not about saving the family. It's about hatemongering, pure and simple.

Hmmmm I'm still thinking of what past failures your thinking of because there IS NONE. You libs are all alike so predictable its funny!

Most political parties or divisions are predictable. We like them that way.

Just like the miscegenation laws that many states had in the past, which not only made it illegal to marry interracially but actually had prison sentences in some states for those who married anyway, I think a case should be brought before the Supreme Court so that they can state that civil marriage ceremonies between ANYONE, regardless of sex, is legal.

<i> Pardon me for one last vent, but the thing that really bothers me is the hate that I hear from some (not all) religious people on this issue. I do not claim to be knowledgable of all faith's, but I do think that hatred is a value that is often spoke of in an undesirable fashion. </i> I'm sorry if that was directed at me Aqua? >hangs head< sorry if I came off as a hater.....

Mr.Bri I really hope you're kidding but, if you're not I respect your right to your opinion. You are correct in that a lot of Dubyas' support base is the good 'ol boy club and their barefoot and pregnant wives. you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us. I'm sorry but who knows better what to touch and when to touch it than someone who has the same equipment? But some of his supporters probably have homosexual relatives and some will feel that familial tug and want their {sisiter, brother, cousin, niece, nephew} relative to be happy as well. Oh and uh........ where are the jobs??? and show me the weapons?




BTW in case you can't tell I don't have television, no newspaper, no time to listen to the radio..... so I'm not completely UTD on everything never have been big on politics........


Always
Kyttn

Weapons are there too just the liberal media wont report it. Now I do hope your kidding when you said "you know the kind that go out and find people like me and either burn them at the stake for being witches or torture and sometimes kill us for being homosexuals and loving those closer to us." Ain't that pretty much accusing people like myself of doing something immoral and being cold killers? Now I'm sorry to you homosexuals but its been said since the time of Adam and Eve that marraige should only be between a man and a woman.

Oh yea jobs are there too but of course the media again won't report it because of the hatred they have for this administration.Man we'd all be in hell if Gore won the 2000 election!

Mr Bri oh no...... worse than what Desert Storm Jr hath wrought upon us?

OK...realize that much of the issue here is a political one. Companies would be obligated to provide spousal benefits (at cost to them) to "married" gay and lesbian couples. Additionally, there is a potential marriage tax benefit, and Social Security.

The cost of these benefits are a choking point for many. However, I personally believe that the US goverment should stay out of this one and let the states do their thing.

The Constitution was meant to be an INCLUSIVE document, rather than an exclusive document. Preventing a certain segment from having rights seems out of context in this great document/institution.

BamaKyttn,

I have only one thing to say....

Spot On!

You are soooo right! People need to have a more open mind! And handfasting is the way to go!

Not for nothing....but it's slightly more sinester than just "big gov" telling the little state govs what they can and can't do.

They've left it up to the states so far for whatever reason, but the courts are showing signs that the anti-gay laws most states have (and they do already have them in 38? ish states) can be struck down as unconstitutional.

Hence, the need for the constitutional amendment. It's not the states' hands W. is trying to take this out of....it's the courts'.

Ok, I've thought about this a bit, for the most part I leave my thoughts and feelings about political and religious stuff away from this forum, I'm a member of Pixies because I use it for a place to express a part of my life that doesn't get much expression within my day to day "real life".

I understand that there may be concerns about what happens to a partner after your death, but don't blame the government for what happens to your assets if there isn't a plan in place for your asset distribution that isn't what is wanted ... a Will would take care of most of what you want to happen with assets - the scenario of them not going to a partner would only be the case if you died "intestate" (without a will and/or trust). If you die with a Will, then the terms of the Will will be honored so long as it is legal - gifting to a life partner is legal. (I point this out for general information purposes)

I think this issue is very much a financial issue, insurance companies, etc. have big lobbying dollars and having (years ago) worked in the health/life insurance industry for a large insurance company, I know they have some really big concerns about this.

I think the issue is very much ALSO a beliefs issue .... and pardon me, but as a conservative right-wing person, I get kind of tired of people assuming that I hate them when I have never made a hate comment intentionally to anyone in my life, I don't even believe I have that mindset. Most times, I'm so concerned about making sure that people around me, etc., are happy and feel the love I have for them. I have been involved in a particular religion for all of my life and continue to be so at a fairly deep level, however, as stated above, I don't usually bring that to this forum, but must say that in all the people I know from the religious community, I've never met someone who is all that different from my approach. I have met many who are not within a strong religious following who are willing to accuse me (and others like me) of "hatemongering" though, something I've always found interesting.

At the risk of stating an unpopular view, I agree that marriage should be and is defined (currently) as a union between a man and a woman. It is inherently linked to my beliefs, but like you, South, I don't have a problem with others having a union of a different "name" ... maybe it's not the popular thing, and maybe it's not the politically correct view, but it's mine all the same.

Seems to me pretty pointless to introduce a new institution with exactly the same rights/priveledges as marriage, just for gay people, as there is already in existence a perfectly good one.

There have recently been two posts in Sex News on this site, regarding marriage between a woman and her dead Fiance in France, and a man and a dog in Kathmandu. Sounds to me like plenty of other cultures are willing to take a wider view on marriage.

I thought the 'sanctity of marriage' was to do with two people's loving commitment to each other for the rest of their lives, bringing up children in a stable and loving environment etc etc. Seems to me that children of gay and lesbian people should have the same right to that stability, as others.

Personally, I find the "It's always been that way" approach to be rather irrational and pathetic. Any institution that can't be adequately "protected" by anything other than its status as an institution isn't worth "protecting".

Now, we have the idea before us that a marriage must be defined as a union between a man and a woman. One argument that has been put against it is that evergreen, the "slippery slope" - the idea that if we move down the ideological slope to the point of allowing homosexual marriage, we risk sliding further towards "more perverse" definitions of marriage. The problem with this is that we presume the current definition to be the top of the slope, when that is not necessarily so. As BlueSwede mentioned, there have been in the past anti-miscegenation laws. So, having made the definition of marriage more liberal than before, haven't we already begun the "slide"? Did the world collapse into chaos when we did? Because we did?

The "STD" argument is another that has me baffled, simply because the acts of "sodomy" practised by homosexuals as the primary means of sexual contact can all be performed by heterosexuals too - unless of course, you're in one of those wonderful states with anti-sodomy laws. Now, is there any medical basis for suggesting that a man is more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease from a man's anus than a woman's? Does it even matter? In a free society, can we - should we stop adults of able mind and will from choosing to engage in behaviour that might be risky? If STDs are really of concern, why isn't there a push for promiscuity laws? No, this argument, in my opinion, is all about the need to strike out at and restrict people not fearful of the lobbyists' god.

God - I could write a fair bit on this fellow, but I feel that this is the most important argument to deal with: "God says...". Since when, in a country puportedly permitting free practise of religion, should what god thinks be of any concern whatsoever to lawmakers? Not that I advocate open defiance of everything biblical, but here is a clear example of needless discrimination. To me, churches are an assault on what I see as an institution of rational thought, and infant baptisms an assault on freedom and free will, but I'm not trying to make them unconstitutional, because ultimately it doesn't change my personal experience unless I let it. So go ahead, don't recognize homosexual marriage as a "godly" union, call it invalid or whatever, but don't legislate that which clearly has no effect on you and serves only to marginalize a significant part of society whose defining behaviour is, at least check, legal.

Oh, and for that guy who used the phrase "liberal media" - can you name for me any major media corporations run by liberals? Because, off the top of my head, I can't think of any, and believe me, I tried.

"Anger is the wind,that blows out the light of the mind!"This,like
any other,political or religious subject,causes nothing but disagreements & therefore in my opinion,should be avoided.My
$.02. Irish

I'm just adding my voice to the "If you can wed Men with Women, why not Men with Men or Women with Women?" camp.

Marriage should be more about love than gender.


However, I think one of the main arguments been that a male and female rolemodel are essential for 'proper upbringing' of a child. Which is a silly argument, in my opinion. Having same-sex parents does not, in itself, preclude someone from having rolemodels of other genders, for a start. Nor can it be proven to be detrimental to a child's upbringing.
If anything, it could have the benefit of raising the child in a tolerant, understanding environment.
Besides, how many kids get a 'proper upbringing' these days, anyway? Lots of kids with single parents (which is perfectly legal) don't, if that's the definition!

And yeah, it's all a political sideshow.
What, Iraq? Where's that?? Osama? Never heard of him!

CasperTG

I am bi, and am mostly happily married to a heterosexual man, I have a girlfriend but wouldn't want to be married to a woman. Which doesn't mean anything, really.

I am Canadian and we have the same struggle, but I pose a question. If we decide that marraige between same sex couples is ok, how about brother and sister, father and daughter, etc? Are we discriminating if we don't allow those either? And as far as I know they are NOT allowed in Canada. Don't know about the States.

Love,

Susan

This has got to be some of the most divisive crock of election year bull shit to come down the poop shoot in a long time.MRBRL,I would really like to find a way you can find safety in the bossom of the Bush family while the rest of us return him to Crawford Texas and try to get on with our lives. Liberal media my butt,don'chya know that was a lie to?

(((Bama))), that comment was not directed toward anyone here specifically. It stemmed from comments I have heard in groups, on the radio, on TV, and on the 'Net.

mrbri... Under the current President we have, high unemployment, no WMD's to be found (and this comes from the Bush administration, who had at one time guranteed the world that the weapons were there, but has since backed down and admitted that they may have been wrong), a record federal deficit while managing to set records for campaign contributions...
And cry the usual conservative call of 'liberal media' if you like but; A) If the media is so liberally biased why was President Clinton's private life put on a daily display through it?
B) Why are there so many conservative talk shows on the radio?
Basically the media is there to report on the things they think the majority of the people want to hear. That's it.