As usual, everyone who disagrees is a stupid, unevolved Neanderthal, who is also racist, homophobic, and proslavery. Of course that makes the large majority in that category, while you are naturally enlightened and far wiser than the rest of us. How fortunate for you.
What fosters such an arrogent, condescending attitude anyway? Do you ever wonder why you never persuade anyone with this approach?
I guess I misunderstood what Drag was trying to say. I took it is an attack on me that since I question what the bible has written, I am foolish. Based on what you guys are saying I am taking his reply out of context. That will teach me to reply to OT stuff before having my morning coffee.
I am not trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking, especially because I am not 100% sure what my opinion is, that is why I asked for some reasoning behind the banning of gay marriages. Being nieve to all the reasonings peolpe have for banning these unions, I just don’t understand the uproar.
Drag, I apologize for jumping to conclusions based on your post. AJ, and tibbs, I like everybody I am just looking for both sides of the story so I can make an intelligent decision for myself
** if the US Supreme Court finds those gay marriage bans unconsitutional, then you’re out of luck.**
I think you’re right, but I think you’re overestimating the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will rule against the bans. Especially after Bush gets through packing the court with radical right wing homophobes.
Besides, I thought we didn’t need a Constitutional amendment because this was a states’ rights issue, and that each state can decide for itself? That particular argument seems to have gone the way of the dodo rather quickly.
Sadly I have to agree, I don’t see how given the current political climate how this wouldn’t pass. I personally think this is very unfortunate.
The way things are set up now is that no state is obligated to recognize any marriage from any other state, however they basically never do this. If State A has banned gay unions but a couple gets one in State B and moves to State A, that state is under no legal obligation to recognize it.
If the majority of states ban gay unions (which either has happened already, or will soon) then I don’t see why they’d stop there and attempt to carry it through as an Amendment.
This Amendment will never pass. A 2/3 vote of Congress is required. You will never get that.
I used to support such and Amendment, but I am pretty ambivalent at this point. If gay marriage comes about by passing laws through the democratic process, I would consider it unfortunate, but legitimate.
I totally oppose the BS of having judges create this out of thin air as in MA. If you want gay marriage, do the hard work of winning the hearts and minds of a majority of the American people.
In VT, the legislature created gay unions. I consider that unfortunate, but it was democracy at work. You win some and lose some.
“In VT, the legislature created gay unions. I consider that unfortunate, but it was democracy at work. You win some and lose some.”
Just curious … why unfortunate?
I think it is unfortunate since I oppose gay marriage. Much more importantly though, I support democracy.
Gay unions were passed democratically in VT. I lose on a minor issue, but democracy continues its roll. Life is good.
No offence taken. Just read my name and you should know my position in the gaymarriage argument.
Cheers Torsten
Besides, I thought we didn’t need a Constitutional amendment because this was a states’ rights issue, and that each state can decide for itself? That particular argument seems to have gone the way of the dodo rather quickly.
I don’t know who described it as a state’s rights issue, but it wasn’t me.
I don’t know who described it as a state’s rights issue, but it wasn’t me.
No, and I don’t remember specifically who it was either, but I do remember several folks talking about how a Constitutional amendment was wholly unnecessary since marriage was a states’ rights issue, and that if one state recognized gay marriage, no other state would have to recognize it. (I think it’s beyond unrealistic to think that, but that’s how the argument went, as I recall.)
What do you think the chances are that the issue will come before the Supreme Court in the next few years, jhc? And how do you think they’ll rule?
I wouldn’t put a lot of money, but I’d guess we’ll the the issue before the Supreme Court in the next 5 years or so.
I dont think I can predict how the court would rule… especially if we get some personnel changes soon.
I, and maybe someone else, said this because it is true. No state has to recognize the civil union that was created in any other state. There is no mandatory reciprocity.
Due to the above, this is why the first provision of DOMA is considered unneeded and redundant within existing laws and precedence. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
I definitely reserve the right to be wrong on this though, but this is what I have read about this issue. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I dont think I can predict how the court would rule… especially if we get some personnel changes soon.
If I were strategizing the national fight about this, I wouldn’t make any move at all on an amendment until after the Supreme Court had ruled against me. In the first place, I’d put the odds that gay marriage survives review by the Supreme Court at no better than 50-50 right now, and that’s being generous. I think those odds go down with every judge Bush appoints. Right now support for an amendment is, I think, fairly weak. That would change in a heartbeat if the court ruled in favor of it.
Therefore, I’d prefer to take my chances with the court first- I think they’re in my favor, and if they’re not, it would only provide additional motivation to pass an amendment when it’s needed.
I, and maybe someone else, said this because it is true. No state has to recognize the civil union that was created in any other state. There is no mandatory reciprocity.
OK, let’s assume Bob and Dave get married in New York, a state in which the courts have instituted gay marriage on the spurious grounds that to do otherwise denies gays legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy.
Bob and Dave move to Georgia, one of 40 odd states that ban gay marriage, and therefore doesn’t recognize their marriage. How long do you think it will be before Bob and Dave decide to sue Georgia for violating their civil rights?
I’ll step up and say it’s a state’s rights issue. Currently, there is no foregone conclusion that a legal gay marriage in State A means that State B must recognize it. Of course, that doesn’t foreclose the couple from arguing comity and the Full Faith & Credit clause in the future. So, I suppose it’s possible that eventually, that argument could be used to require State B to recognize State A’s gay marriages.
The current Supreme Court will never permit one state’s permission of gay marriage to require another state to recognize that marriage. At least one, if not more justices will retire before Bush leaves office, and he’ll get to appoint conservative judges. So, any court that exists for a few years post-Dubya will be equally, if not more conservative. Consequently, you’ve probably got a LOT of time before those pesky liberals infiltrate the Court enough to have an impact on the acceptance of gay marriages.
I don’t believe a federal Constitutional Amendment is either needed, or wise at this time. You simply do not amend the Constitution over something that can be adequately protected by the states. States that want to ban gay marriage either have, or will. If the Supreme Court later requires ALL states to recognize gay marriages, then a Constitutional Amendment can be considered at that time… in fact, it’d probably be more likely to pass if the country is REALLY pissed off about the Supreme Court 's decision. Why does it need to be done on a federal level now?
EDIT
Funny. I just read Vitus’ last post to jhc. Looks like we agree that no Constitutional amendment is “needed” until the S. Court rules in favor of forcing states to recognize gay marriage. In the mean time… let the states handle it.
Let’s also remember that a Constitutional Amendment isn’t necessarily the last word. They CAN repeal those things a la Prohibition. Gay marriage is coming, whether it’s in 5 years, 50 years or 500 years… and whether a Constitutional Amendment is passed or not… that’s MY opinion, anyway.
They can sue, but they have no real claim.
Let’s assume Bob and Amy get married in NY and move to Georgia. Georgia doesn’t recognize their marriage. They sue for violating their rights, and my understanding is they’d lose.
I’ll have to read Steve’s post, he’s a smart guy.
The problem is that you don’t know if they will lose or not. You also don’t know that if they lose now, whether some future Supreme Court will reverse that decision by finding a new penumbra or emmanation(sp?). (Yikes Justice Alice, the right to gay marriage has been in the Constitution for 225 years, right there next to the right to abortion and sodomy. How could we have missed it all this time?)
The only reason for an Amendment defining marriage is that we don’t trust the Courts. We are afraid they will just make up the right out of thin air as in MA.
If you think about it, that is a pretty stupid reason for an Amendment to the Constitution. A better solution would be to fix the Courts so we can trust them. Sadly, I have yet to hear an intelligent idea on how to do that.
“A better solution would be to fix the Courts so we can trust them.”
If you figure it out, let me know… I’ll be the first to sign your petition.
I guess this also has with it a bit of interpretation as to what rights are granted to people via the Constitution and how the various courts involved in all this are applying different rights.
The above is obviously my polite way of skirting around having to say “I disagree with you”, but I do. To me, I don’t think the MA courts have made up any new rights, they have just utilized the framework of rights that our country was founded upon with our modern day circumstances.
But like I said, this depends almost entirely on what your view of the rights to civil unions are.
Given that, I’m suprised that you think it’s a state’s rights issue. I mean, we don’t let states selectively recognize or not recognizr interracial marriages, do we?