Amending the Federal Constitution for gay marriage?

[Deegan]

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

No, you got it, I'm crazy about marriage, and it's not just a word to me!

 

[Binary_Digit]

No, you got it, I'm crazy about marriage, and it's not just a word to me!

Well then you go with your marriage, and let others go with theirs. What's so hard about that?

 

[Deegan]

Well then you go with your marriage, and let others go with theirs. What's so hard about that?

Nothing!

 

[Binary_Digit]

Nothing!

Awesome! So we don't need a Constitutional Amendment to define something that's in the eye of the beholder, yes?

 

[Deegan]

Awesome! So we don't need a Constitutional Amendment to define something that's in the eye of the beholder, yes?

No, we don't need an amendment for gay marriage.

 

[Binary_Digit]

No, we don't need an amendment for gay marriage.

You're sort-of right. Because of right-wing rags like Bush, we need an amendment that protects their right to get married! You go with your marriage, and let others go with theirs. Again, what's so hard about that?

 

[Deegan]

No, we don't need an amendment for gay marriage.

...............................:2wave:

 

[Binary_Digit]

No, we don't need an amendment for gay marriage.:wink:

...............................:2wave:

Alright, I admit I'm stumped. Totally confused even. I made the point that "marriage" is just a word, and it's in the eye of the beholder. You responded with:
"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:
And I took this to mean it's more than just a word for you. I need you to please clarify what you mean. My impression is that you agree marriage is love, and if that's the case then marriage between two homosexuals who love each other is still marriage. So why should our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman, instead of between two people who love each other? Love defines marriage, not gender, right??

 

[Narph]

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.

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.

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.

Are you saying that the government can't make stupid laws
are you that naive. The crux of the argument is what the definition of marriage was and what is has become and which one is right. Historically it was a religious union between a man and a women. If this is the definition then
two men can not get married, no more than I can have a baby with myself.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

If this means what you say then why did they need to make the 19th amendment the 14th should have covered the subject of women having the right to vote. Hay under that reasoning they should give me welfare there not giving me equal protection of laws. Every one should get welfare. Every one should get taxed the same. The 14th amendment is a imprecise load of crap that you could twist in all kinds of directions. Hell fourteen year olds should have the right to vote because I do. It's not equal that I can vote and fourteen year olds can't.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Historically it was a religious union between a man and a women.

Not to totally disagree with you, but historically (as in the 1800's) marriage was a financial agreement, not a religoius one. That's why they were pre-arranged.

 

[Narph]

No one is being treated unequally by saying a man and man cant get married. Because every man can not marry another man and every man can marry women no one has any more rights then another.

Also I don't believe the government should have any thing to do with marriage in any way shape or form.

 

[Binary_Digit]

No one is being treated unequally by saying a man and man cant get married. Because every man can not marry another man and every man can marry women no one has any more rights then another.

It's unequal because homosexuals can't marry the person they love, but heterosexuals can.

 

[Narph]

It's unequal because homosexuals can't marry the person they love, but heterosexuals can.

Think about it NO person can marry another person of the same sex making the privilege equally denied.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Think about it NO person can marry another person of the same sex making the privilege equally denied.

You dont understand what right or privilege means. You think heterosexuals feel like they are being denied anything by a ban?

You missed his point entirely, its about who someone wants to spend the rest of their life with, not what sex they are.

 

[Narph]

You dont understand what right or privilege means. You think heterosexuals feel like they are being denied anything by a ban?

You missed his point entirely, its about who someone wants to spend the rest of their life with, not what sex they are.

No one is saying that they can't spend the rest of there life together! You a little slow but I will be patient.

Also I don't believe the government should have any thing to do with marriage in any way shape or form!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No one is saying that they can't spend the rest of there life together! You a little slow but I will be patient.

Also I don't believe the government should have any thing to do with marriage in any way shape or form!

If you're going to call me slow, I'd make sure I were using the word you're properly

You said this:

Think about it NO person can marry another person of the same sex making the privilege equally denied.

That is advocating the denial of the privilege of marraige to homosexuals. Anyone can elect to spend the rest of their life with someone, that wasnt what I was talking about.

You think everyone gets married for the sake of the ritual or the church? People get married for the benefits and tax reasons.

 

[Caine]

No one is saying that they can't spend the rest of there life together! You a little slow but I will be patient.

Also I don't believe the government should have any thing to do with marriage in any way shape or form!

Good, so you agree that nobody should be taxed differently just because they are married correct?

Divorce courts will no longer be necessary because the government should not be involved in Marriage. Criminal laws dealing with Marriage disputes (domestic violence, etc) should not be enforced. Courts should not get involved in custody disputes during a "breakup" between two married people. People in North Carolina shouldn't have to wait for one year of "seperation" status before they can be divorced, since the courts won't handle divorce anymore. During a divorce, the possessions of those involved are avaliable at an a "who snatched it up first" basis, to include monies in a join bank account.

Hmm... these are just examples. Our Government is very well involved in the issue of Marriage, and to say that they should completely back out is ridiculous.

I don't believe that there should be a law defining marriage or forcing gay marriage (never happen with the old homophobic crusts we have in office anyway). I think the issue should be left up to the states, and the states should turn that vote over to the residents of that state. (My state would vote against it anyways, but at least its Democratic and representative.)

 

[Patrickt]

If the government wishes to be involved in marriage then it is, to me, an equal rights issue.

If the government would like to get out of the marriage business, then it would not be an equal rights issue.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

OT: Is that you in the avatar picture Caine?

 

[Caine]

OT: Is that you in the avatar picture Caine?

Yeah......

 

[Narph]

Good, so you agree that nobody should be taxed differently just because they are married correct?

Correct.

Divorce courts will no longer be necessary because the government should not be involved in Marriage.

Yes.

Criminal laws dealing with Marriage disputes (domestic violence, etc)

If i don't take this in the way you ment it please reclerify.
domestic violence is violence and that can be handled with out having a marige lisence. If I have a friend and hit them it should be no different.

Courts should not get involved in custody disputes during a "breakup" between two married people.

To have a custody dipute no one has to be married.
So the government not regognizing marige would not
stop custody disputes.

People in North Carolina shouldn't have to wait for one year of "seperation" status before they can be divorced

What is so wrong with leting individules decide if they are married or not?

During a divorce, the possessions of those involved are avaliable at an a "who snatched it up first" basis, to include monies in a join bank account.

(1) If you and me had a joint bank account and I ran off with all the money you could go after me just the same
even though we are not married.
(2) To address the isue of lets say a wife want half of a husbund house.If her name is put on the dead than she has legal claim to it. No difernet them If me and a friend both owned
a home.
(3)If she expects more that what she has legal claim to
like alomony then she should make up a contract stating so.

but at least its Democratic and representative

I wish every one could just be able to let a nother state decide things for it self.