Amending the Federal Constitution for gay marriage? (1 Viewer)

[Narph]

Amending the Federal Constitution for gay marriage?

(1)Banning gay marriage would be a violation of the first
amendment.
Mariage is a establishment of religion. So Congress can't make laws about it.

(2)Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage would be a violation of the first amendment. Also it would be a violation of the tenth amendment.

Mariage is a establishment of religion. So Congress can't make laws about it.

The details about marriage are not mentioned in the bill of rights so it up to the states.

(3)Also why should one part of this union be forcing this issue on another?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Close, congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Marriage has been around since before any established religions. The issue is about protecting the "sanctity of marriage." Which isnt exactly specifically respecting any religion, but Christians tend to find themselves on that side of the issue.

You're right that it is a state's issue.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's a civil rights issue.

 

[Deegan]

It's a civil union issue actually.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's a civil union issue actually.

It's a civil war issue actually.

 

[nineplus]

You're right that it is a state's issue.

as long as there are federal perks to marriage, it isn't a state's issue

 

[jallman]

Amending the Federal Constitution for gay marriage?

(1)Banning gay marriage would be a violation of the first
amendment.
Mariage is a establishment of religion. So Congress can't make laws about it.

(2)Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage would be a violation of the first amendment. Also it would be a violation of the tenth amendment.

Mariage is a establishment of religion. So Congress can't make laws about it.

The details about marriage are not mentioned in the bill of rights so it up to the states.

(3)Also why should one part of this union be forcing this issue on another?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

This would all be true if the government werent already lending its assent to the marriage issue by establishing rights and privileges for married couples. Because this is already happening, the issue of marriage becomes not an exercise of religious establishment, but a government institution. As such, this becomes a 14th amendment issue because of the establishment clause. The state cannot offer benefits to one group while denying them to others based on moral disapproval aka religious disapproval.

 

[zymurgy]

Out of respect for Jallman and others who hold this issue very dear to them, I will only vote in the poll.

Everybody knows where I stand on the issue and I don't wish to be a broken record.

 

[Deegan]

This would all be true if the government werent already lending its assent to the marriage issue by establishing rights and privileges for married couples. Because this is already happening, the issue of marriage becomes not an exercise of religious establishment, but a government institution. As such, this becomes a 14th amendment issue because of the establishment clause. The state cannot offer benefits to one group while denying them to others based on moral disapproval aka religious disapproval.

Although it could if it was determined that the same sex couple did not offer the same contributions to society, i.e the continuance of life. I could say family, community, and more, but we all know that these folks can certainly do that. You could also say that some men and women don't, or can't have children, and while true, it does not discount those who can, and do. The government credits people in many ways, such as tax breaks for charity contributions, but we can't all afford that, but should that change the system?

No, this is about acknowledging a difference, and there are many, but I do support civil unions, perhaps the other side could concede as well.

 

[jallman]

Although it could if it was determined that the same sex couple did not offer the same contributions to society, i.e the continuance of life. I could say family, community, and more, but we all know that these folks can certainly do that. You could also say that some men and women don't, or can't have children, and while true, it does not discount those who can, and do. The government credits people in many ways, such as tax breaks for charity contributions, but we can't all afford that, but should that change the system?

No, this is about acknowledging a difference, and there are many, but I do support civil unions, perhaps the other side could concede as well.

I understand where you are coming from in this...I just think it is a little flawed. One person's inability to contribute to charity is much different than the government not accepting or giving benefit to a donor based on say, his race, religious creed, or sexual orientation. This is true of marriage rights and privileges. You cant extend those rights to one group without offering them to the other. Now dont get me wrong, I am all for civil unions and leaving marriage to the churches, but that civil union has to be equal in every way.

 

[Deegan]

I understand where you are coming from in this...I just think it is a little flawed. One person's inability to contribute to charity is much different than the government not accepting or giving benefit to a donor based on say, his race, religious creed, or sexual orientation. This is true of marriage rights and privileges. You cant extend those rights to one group without offering them to the other. Now dont get me wrong, I am all for civil unions and leaving marriage to the churches, but that civil union has to be equal in every way.

I guess I just don't see the problem with "separate but equal" in this scenario, perhaps you could help me with that?

 

[Goobieman]

The state cannot offer benefits to one group while denying them to others based on moral disapproval aka religious disapproval.

The state enacts all kinds of laws based on morality - the 'right thing to do' - thats the entire argument behind the welfare system.

And... there's no Constitutional prohibition against denying someone a state-granted privelege based on morality in general.

 

[jamesrage]

I think the goverment should ban gay marriage/unions/domostic partnerships.I do not think it would violate the Bill of Rights because a.)there is not right to marry in the constitution b.)The founding fourfathers/authors of the constitution did not want gay marriage(therefore it does not violate the bill of rights.).

 

[jallman]

I guess I just don't see the problem with "separate but equal" in this scenario, perhaps you could help me with that?

Let me repeat because you seem to have missed the mark slightly, my friend.

I am all for civil unions and leaving marriage to the churches, but that civil union has to be equal in every way.

I dont see anything wrong with "separate but equal" either, so long as the equality is maintained.

 

[jallman]

I think the goverment should ban gay marriage/unions/domostic partnerships.I do not think it would violate the Bill of Rights because a.)there is not right to marry in the constitution b.)The founding fourfathers/authors of the constitution did not want gay marriage(therefore it does not violate the bill of rights.).

Nevermind that we are an evolving and changing society and that the Constitution is intentionally open-ended for just such a reason...but please, do reference for us where the founding fathers stated that they did not want gay marriage. Please, amuse us all with your secret knowledge or skills as a medium...or perhaps you have access to some previously undisclosed letters from one founder to another...

I'm waiting.

 

[jallman]

The state enacts all kinds of laws based on morality - the 'right thing to do' - thats the entire argument behind the welfare system.

And... there's no Constitutional prohibition against denying someone a state-granted privelege based on morality in general.

Wrong. We enact laws based on ethics and protection of the individual's rights. We do not enact laws based on religious morality or morality in general. In fact, several court rulings and precedents strictly forbid it.

 

[Deegan]

Let me repeat because you seem to have missed the mark slightly, my friend.



I dont see anything wrong with "separate but equal" either, so long as the equality is maintained.

Well so we agree, I was never one to support the religious aspect, even though I live it, and respect it. I have shed many tears when I watched friends watch their partners die, and are not allowed to pass on their wealth, property, etc to the ones they wanted to have it, this must end, and end now. I also agree that these unions will have a great impact on the gay community, and give folks like yourself, a chance to show they can be just as loving, just as faithful, just as beneficial to their respected communities.

 

[Deegan]

Nevermind that we are an evolving and changing society and that the Constitution is intentionally open-ended for just such a reason...but please, do reference for us where the founding fathers stated that they did not want gay marriage. Please, amuse us all with your secret knowledge or skills as a medium...or perhaps you have access to some previously undisclosed letters from one founder to another...

I'm waiting.

Even if they did, even if he had the evidence, it would matter little, these men owned men and women, they are hardly my hero's, they just wrote a very good document, and one that could stand the test of time!

 

[talloulou]

This would all be true if the government werent already lending its assent to the marriage issue by establishing rights and privileges for married couples. Because this is already happening, the issue of marriage becomes not an exercise of religious establishment, but a government institution. As such, this becomes a 14th amendment issue because of the establishment clause. The state cannot offer benefits to one group while denying them to others based on moral disapproval aka religious disapproval.

I agree. You can't claim "marriage" is only a religious instituition. That's horseshite.

However I don't think any amendment should be made either way. I don't like amending the constitution and I think this issue will honestly resolve itself over time. I can understand and feel for people who are impatient with the slow pace but I honestly feel as long as the issue is brought up again and again eventually the old voters will start to die off and the young voters will be so bored with the whole thing that they really just won't give a phuck. I think the younger generations are growing up with way more exposure and acceptance towards homosexuality and to them the answer to the question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry will seem so obvious as to be boring and silly. So I advocate patience over amendments but not sit back and do nothing patience....just keep bringing it up over and over and eventually the tides will change and people will move forward.

 

[Narph]

This would all be true if the government werent already lending its assent to the marriage issue by establishing rights and privileges for married couples. Because this is already happening, the issue of marriage becomes not an exercise of religious establishment, but a government institution. As such, this becomes a 14th amendment issue because of the establishment clause. The state cannot offer benefits to one group while denying them to others based on moral disapproval aka religious disapproval.

I have a big problem with this amendment. I just can't seem to respect a Amendment that was done at gun point.
Which I think makes it invalid.
That Aside. It says no state shell make laws abridging privileges or immunities of the citizens of the U.S. First it does not say rights. Second there are no privileges mentioned in the Constitution.
Also abridge can mean to extend as well, not just take away but to give to. If you follow that a state could neither give you a privilege or take it away. Which makes no sense that a state is not in charge of privileges. This amendment is very open for interpretation, but it does not apply to rights! Driving is a privilege not a right and the states are
in charge of driver licenses so that in it self is a violation of the 14th amendment.

abridging 2 : to shorten in duration or extent


Amendment XIV.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Amending the Federal Constitution for gay marriage?

(1)Banning gay marriage would be a violation of the first
amendment.
Mariage is a establishment of religion. So Congress can't make laws about it.

(2)Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage would be a violation of the first amendment. Also it would be a violation of the tenth amendment.

Mariage is a establishment of religion. So Congress can't make laws about it.

The details about marriage are not mentioned in the bill of rights so it up to the states.

(3)Also why should one part of this union be forcing this issue on another?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Atheists can get legally married just the same as the Moonies.

 

[jallman]

I have a big problem with this amendment. I just can't seem to respect a Amendment that was done at gun point.
Which I think makes it invalid.

Regardless, it is still part of the constitution, ratified and instituted with the full authority of our government...and has been for some time now.

That Aside. It says no state shell make laws abridging privileges or immunities of the citizens of the U.S. First it does not say rights. Second there are no privileges mentioned in the Constitution.
Also abridge can mean to extend as well, not just take away but to give to. If you follow that a state could neither give you a privilege or take it away. Which makes no sense that a state is not in charge of privileges. This amendment is very open for interpretation, but it does not apply to rights! Driving is a privilege not a right and the states are
in charge of driver licenses so that in it self is a violation of the 14th amendment.

abridging 2 : to shorten in duration or extent

So what are you saying? That there is a completely invalid amendment just hanging out in the constitution with no real purpose? Not buying it.

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Right within that bolded part is the entire crux of the argument. The government is extending certain protections and rights to married couples through marriage that it is denying other couples who wish to have those same rights. You try telling a spouse who is asked to testify against her husband that it is her privilege not to testify...she'll be quick to remind you its her right not to testify. So will her attorney and so will the court. Thats just one "protection" being extended and denied with no logical reason except a moral disapproval or religious basis. The fourteenth amendment clearly applies.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Some people claim that being against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Whether that's true or not, it has everything to do with morals. Religious morals, non-religious morals, whatever, it's all the same. So I strongly question the morals of anyone who supports this amendment but does not support an amendment banning divorce or affairs or swinging or inter-racial marriage, and only I hope they eventually realize the hypocracy of their moral judgment and give up this stupid fight already. Good lord people, it's just a word!

 

[Deegan]

Some people claim that being against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Whether that's true or not, it has everything to do with morals. Religious morals, non-religious morals, whatever, it's all the same. So I strongly question the morals of anyone who supports this amendment but does not support an amendment banning divorce or affairs or swinging or inter-racial marriage, and only I hope they eventually realize the hypocracy of their moral judgment and give up this stupid fight already. Good lord people, it's just a word!

It may just be a word to you, so next time your heart hurts, I'll send you to my ditch digger.....no, I mean my doctor!:roll:

 

[Binary_Digit]

It may just be a word to you, so next time your heart hurts, I'll send you to my ditch digger.....no, I mean my doctor!:roll:

I didn't say love is just a word, I said marriage. Am I mssing your point?