Should the constitution be amended to ban gay marriages?

[otseng]

Bush Presses for Ban on Gay Marriages

President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry and John Edwards.

Does the constitution need to be amended to ban gay marriages?

[Iconoclast]

But the adopted children will never share their fathers' genes, and never have the spark to truly call them their own.

[FreddieFreeloader]

But the adopted children will never share their fathers' genes, and never have the spark to truly call them their own.

Adopted children never share the genes of their parents, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual or whatever...

We cannot claim equal rights for gays, then proceeding to give them special advantages. Suddenly starting to discriminate against a "normal" heterosexual, white middle-class Catholic couple, would be as hypocritical as discriminating against a gay, half-black, half-asian, atheist couple.

[Corvus]

But the adopted children will never share their fathers' genes, and never have the spark to truly call them their own.

Eh? Freddiefreeloader has already stated the obvious, but are you saying that adopted children are never loved more than children who are born to their parents? I think this is quite untrue. I think foster parents can love their children as much as, or even more so, than normal children. A similarity in blood does not confer any special properties, nor does it somehow result in sudden feeling of devotion or affection towards a person. Plenty of parents, and a great deal of relatives, are responsible for abusing children.

I would like to think I love my parents not for the simple act of conceiving me, which might have been nothing more than an accident, but for the far more difficult and meritorious task of raising me.

[science1]

No i believe that the Constitution should not be amended to ban gay marriage. It is not the governments place to say whether or not two people who love each other could marry. Also religion should stay out of it too. Religious policies are always governed by a few people who interpret a BOOK! I think that the debate over gay marriage is similar to the civil rights and womens lib. some time in the future we will look back at this in disgust of our actions and apologize.

[Gangstawombatninja]

I don't think we should pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I don't we should pass one to make it legal either. Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand not even heterosexual marriage is federally legal; it's entirely left up to the state so that one state currently does not acknowledge the union of another state legally. I know that sound wrong but I think that's how it works but I may be wrong. And from what I understand if gays were federally allowed to marry legally that would make them an official minority which would entintle them to special privelages. I know that sounds wrong so I may be wrong. But if it is true I don't think gays deserve special privelages because I think of them as total equals.

So basically, I think it should be left up to the states. I don't think it should be banned because I don't think it's immoral. Here's why.

On homosexuality. Correct me if I'm wrong but not in mocking misquote type of way. A person is born asexual, without sexual orientation. This is because hormones determine sex drive of a person and a baby has no hormones and no sex drive so it has no orientation--it doens't respond with arousal to seeing members of the certain sex. It's only later that a person develops homosexuality but that still doesn't make a choice or at least a conscious choice. On an episode of Law and Order it said Freud said who you are is already determined by age 5 or 6. But a child that young doesn't choose how his/her body responds to certain visual images. I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong.

My uncles said he read something on a study done in which this guy compared one hundred heterosexual brains to one hundred homosexual brains and found their brain structures to be different. So maybe it is genetic and you are born with either way it's not a conscious choice.

I only define immorality or badness as that which deprives another person (or animal) of happiness. Anything that spreads happiness is moral and good.

On gay marriage: I saw on the news one time a lesbian couple in Vermont who have been in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship for twently years. Now, I ask you this: is the union between Britney Spears and Whoever for less than a day any more sacred than that lesbian couple? Who deserves to a have their love validated more? Is the former any less legitimate than the latter?

[mrmufin]

Hello, Gangstawombatninja, and welcome to the DC&R forums!

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand not even heterosexual marriage is federally legal; it's entirely left up to the state so that one state currently does not acknowledge the union of another state legally. I know that sound wrong but I think that's how it works but I may be wrong.

You are wrong, for the most part; see the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. That's one reason that so many couples go to Las Vegas: to get drunk and get married in one quick, efficient, drive-by ceremony. Wouldn't it suck if that marriage wasn't recognized back in Pittsburgh, PA or Dover, DE? While being a party to a marriage contract falls under State jurisdiction and guidelines, the institution is recognized by the several States, just as my driver's license is recognized when I drive out of state.

Some states, however, respect "common law" marriage, which, to the best of my knowledge, is not transferable if the couple leaves the state.

And from what I understand if gays were federally allowed to marry legally that would make them an official minority which would entintle them to special privelages. I know that sounds wrong so I may be wrong. But if it is true I don't think gays deserve special privelages because I think of them as total equals.

An important thing to note is that the Federal Marriage Amendment that was lurking about in Congress not too long ago didn't use any of the following words: homosexual, gay, lesbian, sex, orientation, preference. This is the entire text of the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Further, I wouldn't expect any legislation which would preclude marriage on the basis of sexual orientation to be taken too seriously. Far too few politicians, in my opinion, have the cajones to write legislation with their prejudice so plainly stated. Ultimately, nothing in the FMA would've prevented a gay man or lesbian woman from marrying, so long as they don't want to marry a person of the same gender.

Basically, Betty and Wilma may have a lawful, committed, cohabitating, consensual, loving, sexual, caring, trusting, exclusive, and very special relationship. All the stuff which most persons would like to have in their own marriage. All the stuff that politicians tell us is so friggen marvelous about marriage. Yet, if either Wilma or Betty want any of the legal benefits (the part that the politicians gloss over) associated with being a party to a marriage contract, they have to choose between the person they love and those benefits. Kinda nutty, really: Based on all the States' prerequisites, both Betty and Wilma could be a parties to a marriage contract, just not with each other, or any other woman. The FMA was thinly veiled gender discrimination wrapped up in a bunch of homophobic rhetoric.

I only define immorality or badness as that which deprives another person (or animal) of happiness. Anything that spreads happiness is moral and good.

While happiness can get pretty darn subjective, it's probably a darn good place to start.

On gay marriage: I saw on the news one time a lesbian couple in Vermont who have been in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship for twently years. Now, I ask you this: is the union between Britney Spears and Whoever for less than a day any more sacred than that lesbian couple? Who deserves to a have their love validated more? Is the former any less legitimate than the latter?

That example, and far too many others, point to the foolishness of such an Amendment. That people concern themselves so much with a single dimension of another couple's relationship is totally bizarre to me. That the prejudice against same-sex marriage so closely parallels so many of the social injustices that this nation has ultimately risen above is a little disturbing. Meanwhile, the heterosexual couple next door that fights all the time, cheats on each other, and/or indulges in other untraditional marital brouhaha draws nary an ire... Sorta ironic, huh?

From a legal perspective, love has about as much to with marriage as the color of your car has to do with your driver's license. There's no prenuptial love test minimum score required for marriage.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Amphigorey]

I’ve always thought traditional marriage in all cultures was about the control of property, titles, and inheritance. But marriage has changed drastically over the centuries. At least in America, women are no longer a man’s chattel, and marriage is no longer accompanied by dowries.

Marriage in America has become a civil contract between two people. There are 1049 benefits granted by the Federal Government for those who can sign a marriage license. In the case of social security or the right to inherit property without paying tax the benefits are financially very significant.

If same sex couples merely want to have their relationships sanctified, they have many options to choose from. Metropolitan Community Church has been sanctifying gay relationships for over 30 years. The Society of Friends has been supportive of gay rights since the 1960’s. And gay couples have many other accepting Christian churches to choose from. Clearly, gay couples have been getting sanctified in church for a long time. And further, legalizing gay marriage will not obligate any church or clergy to sanctify marriages they think are wrong.

For anyone who thinks gay and lesbian couples are undeserving of these benefits or somehow don’t constitute “real” families, according to the latest census data 28% of same sex households are raising children:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethi ... cover.html

If you look at specific segments you find much higher rates of parenting. For example, 38% of white lesbian couples have children while 61% of African American lesbian couples have children.

http://www.elitestv.com/discus/messages ... 1097515964

Clearly, regardless of what your traditions dictate, gays and lesbians have families and they deserve the same Federal benefits that heterosexuals with families receive.

For anyone who thinks that homosexual relationships don’t stand up to scrutiny, let me remind you that the first lesbian couple married in San Francisco were Phyllis Martin and Del Lyon who have been living together for over 50 years.

The national debate should be about marriage licenses, not religious beliefs. It is the body of contractual law represented by the marriage license which defines a marriage, not the two names that get written into the license. Marriage remains as defined regardless of who is married. That is why same sex marriage could be legalized today and no one’s preexisting marriage would change in the least.

In fact the contention that gay couples somehow “threaten” marriage completely ignores the fact that there are entities which do alter existing marriages materially. And those are the States. Marriage is defined differently from state to state. If you want to “threaten” your marriage, just move to another state. The age of consent, the grounds under which you can divorce, parental custody precedent, and property settlements all change from state to state. (Didn’t I tell you marriage was all about the control of property?)