or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages - Page 3

post #61 of 134
Thread Starter 
Hmmm.... and why do you say that such behaviour is controlable? Remember, it is the sexual instinct... the same way that a straight person will find it impossible to think like a gay person, if you understand what I mean.

Anyway, I doubt it can be comparable to pedophilia. Pedophilia causes harm to others, on the contrary at the same time you have to wonder... what harm causes what two consenting adults do behind closed doors? At the same time (and I don't mean to sound like my girlfriend here)... if someone can find love in life why is that bad? Regardless of whose sex it is.

As for the other thing.... about what you've just said... would that mean that 40 yrs ago you would have said that it is not the right time? I don't know about you, but had not the Civil Rights activists forced it down the throats of the racists, and those who were against civil rights it would still be like that.

As for the multiple marriages... there is a detail, poligamy is only allowed in certain muslim countries... in many it is already being banned.

In the case of homosexual marriage, we are talking about many countries... many of the most advanced and most influential countries in the world, and soon, it may start constituting a majority, putting the U.S. as an outcast, as it is impossible for a gay couple to even travel there without their marriage not being recognized.

The same thing would be with a scenario of the United States banning things like stem cell research while in Europe, Latin America, Asia, etc. it is being done full steam ahead.
post #62 of 134
Hmmm.... and why do you say that such behaviour is controlable? Remember, it is the sexual instinct... the same way that a straight person will find it impossible to think like a gay person, if you understand what I mean.
You didn't read what I wrote did you? Read it again. I believe I was very clear that there is a difference between preference and behavior. ALL BEHAVIOR is controllable. Are you saying that heterosexuals can't control themselves? That all heterosexual men are out raping women? That all heterosexual women are running around having sex with every man that comes along? Of course not.

And the claim that it is genetically pre-determined is EXACTLY the same claim as that of groups that claim pedophilia is "natural and normal". Again, it's the BEHAVIOR that is in question, not the predisposition. If a person actually is predisposed to be a pedophile but never acts on that desire is he/she then a pedophile? Do you lock them up for a predisposition? In the US we prosecute people for their behavior, not their desires. And, as I said, it's the behavior that is in question in the issue at hand.

As for Civil Rights, the passive resistance and peaceful actions of such people as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did great things to forward people perceptions about race. The violent actions of others, such as Malcolm X actually set the movement back and created a backlash among the white population. Even Malcolm X himself stated in his later years that his approach was wrong and his methods and ideology were flawed.

While polygamy is infrequently practiced (often for purely economic reasons) it is still very legal in most of the Islamic world.

The US bans many things that other countries recognize, as other countries take their own path on other issues. Denmark allows euthanasia for humans with terminal diseases (with LOTS of problems) which is not accepted in most of the US or most of the rest of the world. The classic example thrown up in every medical study is thalidomide, which was accepted in most of the western world but not in the US. The birth defects caused by this drug still haunt the drug agencies of Europe. DDT is still used in South America and parts of Africa and Asia. Norway and Iceland still hunted whales until recently (I think they've stopped, not sure), and Japan still does.

As I think I've been very clearly stating in several posts - homosexual marriage likely will be eventually accepted in the US (as I think it should) but the best approach is a positive and patient one through education and taking small steps. Trying to make a large leap and force it down the public's throat will only result in a backlash (as is happening) and a long delay in its acceptance and legal approval.

post #63 of 134
Just to let you know, they are not "Forcing" it down their throats, what they are doing absolutely has to be done! Accepting homosexuality is going no where fast. In my opinion I believe this needs to be done because it will help educate people about this. With a president that does not believe in same sex marriage, and many people running for president that also don't believe in it, just makes it that much harder to get this recognized. If I am understanding what you said CharmsDad, then you are saying your sexual preference is a behavior. First of all, you can not control your sexual preference, you can try your hardest to cover it up and hide it. Yoviher wasn't saying you can't control how much you want sex! That has nothing to do with it, especially when you say that would mean hetero's can't control themselves! I believe people are born with their sexual preference, just like race and sex, and yes all of those can be changed, many people have changed sex's, and some unmentionable people have changed their skin color as well! If someone wanted to so badly change what sex they liked, they may be able to on the outside, but no matter how hard you try, you will always have what you are born with, even if it can't be seen. Back on topic, what is happening in MA and San Fransisco is what needs to be done. If it were being forced down the publics throat then that would mean we are making them sit there and watch these people get married. They don't have to recognize it is happening, but they do need to know that they are people just like us, and they love regular people just the same. I believe you are right though when you say it will be eventually accepted, I just think they need this push in the right direction!

(I do not mean to offend anyone at all, and if I do, I am sorry, I was just angry over something else and I may have let that get into this discussion)
post #64 of 134
I think it's wonderful. The picture of the two older ladies brought tears to my eyes (heck, it is now just thinking about it). I just think it's wonderful and wish other places would follow suit.
post #65 of 134
I wanted to make one of those 10 myth of same-sex marriage format type of argument but decided to stick to something simpler. Perhaps if I had more time to formulate the argumnets. Here are my reason why there should be same-sexed marriage.

1) Vote: “Will of the people argumentâ€
Opponents of the same-sex marriage state that both in polls and actual votes the majority of the population are against same-sex marriage. The response is that just because the majority supports a position does not mean that it can ignore the needs of the minority or discriminate against them.

a) Parallels with Interracial marriage:
In 1967, the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia struck down laws that banned interracial marriage stating “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.†Do the words of the Supreme Court no longer make sense just because we substitute the words “another race†for “same gender?†This decision and the earlier decision of Perez v Sharp (1948) came at a time where public opposition to interracial marriage was extremely high.

While the laws against interracial marriage were not enforced, they were not completely repeals until 2000. It was not until 1998 that South Carolina repealed their laws against interracial marriage and in 2000 Alabama. It should be noted that in South Carolina 38% of the votes were against the repeal and in Alabama 41%.

b) “Activist Judgesâ€:
So it seems that without the acts of these “activist judges†the ban against interracial marriage would have carried on until 2000. The fact is that often in civil rights cases it is these “activist judges†that are protecting the rights of the people especially those in the minority. If you think about it, these judges are not “activists†but merely people who are upholding the constitution.

c) Tyranny of the majority:
A society where majority rules and the rights and interests of the minority are not protected is not democracy in action but that of failure. What is more insidious than having laws that discriminate, teaching people to discriminate then turning around and saying that the majority supports such discrimination hence it is valid.

2) Social Collapse Argument:
It is claimed that if same-sex marriage is allowed, society will be split apart, culture will crumble and the moral fabric of the nation will be ripped asunder. If that claim was true then they would have made a very strong argument. But merely repeating a conclusion over and over again without proof or even an explanation as to how society will decay and collapse does not make one’s conclusion correct. Countries which have granted same-sex marriages have yet collapse.

a) Parallels with women’s rights and interracial marriageâ€
It would seem that the arguments against same-sex marriage are very similar to the arguments made against women’s rights and interracial marriage. One of the opponents against interracial marriage in Alabama stated that “Interracial marriage is bad for our Southern culture.†(http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...a.interracial/)
It should be noted that some members of the House panel in Alabama reportedly balked at approving the interracial marriage bill until they were assured it would not open the door for homosexual marriages in the state. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/12/interr...age/index.html)

Christian fundamentalist oppose and defeated the introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution as that would go against the ‘traditional family’ structure of obedience and submission which would result in the further decline of Western Society.

b) Bad influence on Children argument
The argument that same-sex marriage would be a detriment on children betrays a sense that the person still operates on the notion that homosexuality is a disease that can be spread. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sexed parents are not maladjusted nor do they automatically become a homosexual. In fact same-sexed parents adopts children with disability at a higher rate and giving them a loving home, which detracts from the idea that somehow or other same-sex couples or marriage will result in the collapse of society.

c) Fine with Homosexuality but against same sex marriage argument
There are more “moderate†people who claim that they have no objections against homosexuality but are against same sex marriage. One must question whether have these people thought out their position or do they harbour thoughts against homosexuality. After all, if homosexuality is not a crime and there is nothing wrong with it then what is wrong with same-sexed marriage?

d) Same sexed marriage today, polygamy and incest tomorrow argument
Unlike same-sexed marriage, polygamy or other forms of more extreme examples such as incest can be shown to be actually detrimental. For example children of people who are closely related have a high chance of deformity.

3) Civil Union v Marriage
Marriage is not simply a nice ceremony and bouquet throwing but brings with a bag of legal rights.

a) “What is in a name?â€
Some opponents of same-sex marriage are willing to grant same-sex couples all the legal rights in a marriage but that it is to be considered as a civil union instead of a marriage. The Massachusetts court stated recently that “the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.†If asking certain racial groups to move to the back of the bus is discriminatory despite the fact that all are offered public transport why is this any different.

b) “Sacred and Specialâ€
It has been argued that marriage is sacred and special and that allowing same-sex marriage will destroy that. Again, such statements offer conclusions and no reasoning other than repeating the conclusion over and over again. How does allowing same-sex couple marry affect one’s marriage? If something such as same-sex marriage of another person can destroy one’s own marriage then that couple is facing a whole lot of other problems.

4) Religious rights does not act as a trump
As much as one should protect one’s freedom to religion, that right does not trump all other rights. The preamble of the Human Rights Charter promotes among other things equality but makes no specific reference to religion, thus suggesting that the dignity of each individual human being and their rights are of paramount importance and should not be abrogated.

a) Parallels with apartheid, gender and slavery:
In the past when South Africa was under apartheid, their government tried to justify their position based on their religious belief. Religion has also been used to discriminate against women.

Also slavery has been justified through the use of religion but that does not mean that religious rights should take precedence.
Genesis 9:24-25 Noah awakens from drunkenness and curses Ham that Canaan shall be a “servant of servantsâ€
Leviticus 25:44-46 God tell Moses that Hebrews should not sell their own brethren but should buy slaves “of the nations that are around you.â€
Alabama Senator argued that those bitter about slavery “are obviously bitter and hateful against God and his word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say concerning slavery†(Alabama House Candidate Quits After Slavery Defence, Washington Post, May 12, 1996)

The point is not whether such interpretation is ‘correct’ but rather the danger of promoting one set of religious belief over every single citizen.

After all if there is same-sexed marriage, it does not mean that every one must be forced to enter into same-sex marriage. No rights of the individual are lost if same-sex marriage came into being yet on the contrary a lot of people are affected not just in a theoretical “sacred and special†way but in a real way if same-sex marriage is banned.
post #66 of 134
Thread Starter 
You folks hit it right on the nail!

George, I could say it again, but to avoid wasting time, go back and also reread Chixyb's post over what I truly said. I would also suggest you to read my post again .

41 percent voting against the repeal in Alabama????? Boy, that's scary. And added to what that Alabama senator said it doesn't give a good image of Alabama abroad, does it?

Oh George, BTW, DDT and whaling is never comparable to gay marriage. A ban on DDT only concerns DDT users/manufaturers/ambientalists/customs officers.

On gay marriage you are saying that say, two gay people who married in say, Holland, cannot live the normal life they would have in Holland, in the United States of America. Now, if you start adding into the equation that more countries start legalizing it, and to it that it is western countries (you don't have any excuse of difference of moral values as if it was the Middle East) then the pressure starts mounting, as I said again, it is a social matter, if gay people have the same rights everyone has in most of the western world except the U.S. then you can start imagining the effect it has on American reputation abroad, and the pressure there would be to change that.

At the same time I must add something: Taking into account that the U.S. has a decentralized form of government in which most matters are in the hands of its states and territorries, it is almost definitely that the first legalization of gay marriage will be in a state or overseas territorry. Let's say that California legalizes it... then imagine that couple moves two years later to Arkansas... you've got a serious problem. It will obviously be absurd to try to say that a marriage license is valid in state A and not valid in state B, since we are talking of the SAME country. If such a thing is possible, then at the same time we can argue the fact that although the US territorry of Puerto Rico allows marriage between cousins, that heterosexual couple is not married in Alabama, which technically is part of the same country. And that's where the states that are very conservative are dragged kicking and screaming into it, as they then would have two options: legalize it, or leave it like that and everyone who wants to do it travels to another state and you have to recognize that marriage license.
post #67 of 134
The President just spoke and said he wants a constitutional ammendment to BAN all same sex marriages! I can't believe he is doing this, I used to have respect for him, but now that is pretty much gone. The congress still has to approve, but they probably believe the same as him...
post #68 of 134
Meagan, Bush said as much in the State of the Union speech, before there were any court rulings or issuing of licenses. I think that most of Congress will bow to the wishes of the majority of their constituents (no matter how right or wrong it is), and the majority of the country are Christians who believe this is spiritually and morally wrong and will do anything possible to stop it. The only hope is that for an Amendment to be ratified, it has to pass by a majority in both the House and Senate. Hopefully there are enough with courage of conviction to vote against this.

Regardless, I just think that a Constitutional Amendment concerning marriage is overstepping. Maybe it's just because I don't get what the big problem is (!!!), but I don't think it a matter of National (Federal) concern. Aren't there bigger issues out there than whether the word "marriage" is selective for Congress to worry about? And for Bush to worry about?
post #69 of 134
I completely understand what you are saying, even if it did get passed by congress, and then went to the states...from all of the polls I have seen it doesn't look good. But who knows, I just say let people marry who they want and forget about it, if someone doesn't believe in it then they don't have to. I also just heard that one of the politicians (don't know who) would like the San Fransisco Mayor arrested for this. Sheesh, does that really need to be done?
post #70 of 134
Thread Starter 
Already heard it on WPAB Radio.... the last respect I could have for Bush is gone.

Now, there is something: In Latin America the proceeding for amending the constitution is usually a referendum, in which a proposed amendment is ratified by direct vote. The US has a more complex system. I believe most of you folks will know it, but let me explain, for the benefit of those who don't:

First of all an amendment has to be proposed. In order to propose it, you need the approval of two thirds of both houses of Congress, in other words you need 67 senators and 290 representatives voting "Yay" for proposing the amendment.

There is a second option to have it proposed, which can be done, even if Congress has already voted "Nay" for proposing the amendment. If two thirds of the state legislatures favor proposing the amednment. To achieve this, you need to have 34 states in which both houses of the state legislatures approve of proposing the amendment.

Once the amendment has been proposed, then three fouths of the state legislatures have to ratify the amendment. To achieve this, you need to have 38 states in which both houses of the state legislature ratify the amendment. Once all that happens, then it becomes law.

Now, due to the incredible complexity of this, it is obvious that Bush's dream of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, is that. A dream. IMO, there is no way that you can achieve in such an issue such a consensus through the states and Congress.

All the obstacles: Trying to convince countless Democratic congressmen to vote for the amendment, and try to convince all the ones who will be convinced by the pro gay marriage lobbyists, or the ones who come from very liberal regions, and don't want to lose votes, and such.

Once you get it to the states, it becomes even greater the problem, as each state legislator will have lobbyists from all the country on top of them. Then, convince the liberal legislators to vote for it. On top of that, there is a double jeopardy for each state: The state senate may approve, but the house may not.

Note: Many Congressmen and state senators will be afraid of voting in favor because of losing gay votes.

There will definitely be states which will approve it, like the conservative states, but to achieve that same consensus in 38 states, is almost impossible.

Taking into account all this, I find it obvious that such an amendment will go the same way the equal rights amendment went.
post #71 of 134
Great post, thy451. I was also perturbed when I read that Bush wanted a constitutional amendment, but as Victor just pointed out, that is much easier said than done. One thing I'd like to hear is how Canadians have adjusted to same-sex marriages being legal. Germany legalized them about three years ago, and although there was a great hue and cry, i.e., many of the same arguments now being used in the U.S., before it was passed by the Bundestag, it's simply a non-issue now. Marriages between heterosexuals haven't been "degraded", society hasn't fallen apart, and other countries that allow "civil unions", like France, are also still functioning. Germany expressly forbade adoptions by homosexuals, but even that isn't an issue. Most people who want to adopt can't, because there simply aren't enough babies up for adoption, and those who have the money, whether straight or gay, adopt overseas. I really think the whole issue is being exaggerated because it's an election year. As far as it being a "religious" issue is concerned, does homosexuality automatically preclude one's being a devout Christian, Jew, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Moslem, Buddhist, etc..? I'm well aware that many established religions condemn homosexuality, and "excommunicate" gay members, but does that change those individuals' beliefs?
post #72 of 134
I haven't spoken to one single fellow Canadian who is opposed to the fact that same-sex marriage is legal here in Canada. I think in general we're a pretty laid back country, and take most things in stride.

Just give us beer and we're good to go

post #73 of 134
Coincidentally, when the President spoke today, he interrupted the Ellen show here.

It just annoys me and makes me sad. My heart dropped for all homosexual couples that love each other and believe in the institution of marriage. I can't imagine what it must feel like for such a fuss to be made over your love for another person of the same gender and desire to be married, that the President himself has to interrupt my viewing enjoyment to speak against it.
post #74 of 134
I agree that it will be difficult, if not impossible to pass a Constitutional Amendment on this issue - as it should be! Obviously you all know my viewpoint on this by now.

But I have to say that thinking this is a partisan issue is a bit naive. So far, I've only heard Ted Kennedy coming out and saying it is just wrong. Only the farthest Left of the Left. Even Kerry (Kennedy's protege) has said that he opposes gay marriage, although he doesn't think a Constitutional Amendment is the answer. The problem is that they are all concerned with the vote, and if you go by the statistics that homosexuals make up 5-6% of the population that doesn't represent a large segment that they will lose by voting against the amendment. However, Judeo-Christians make up a vast majority of the vote, and by their religious doctrine are opposed to gay marriage. By "coming out" (pun fully intended ) and publicly supporting gay marriage they risk alienating a large number of voters, regardless of political affiliation. The best argument that they can make that MAY appease the voters is that a Constitutional Amendment is going too far, and that this is a State's issue not Federal. But this is certainly not a Republican-for, Democrat-against issue.
post #75 of 134
Thread Starter 
Losing 5-6 percent of your votes can mean the difference between losing and winning. Besides, there is no democrat on earth who can expect getting the bible belt states. But they would worry a lot is they were to lose other states. One of the reasons for which they haven't taken out gun control is because they don't wanna lose the rural Great Plains states. The same applies for gay marriage.

Democrats have always been masters of being "With God and the Devil at the same time" so I think that it is what they will do. It's contradicting their old principle of big federal government (which I favor) but it is the most politically correct thing, when you take into account that it is election year. At the same time the Republicans have violated their principle of states rights by favoring an amendment.

Meanwhile, state level politicians on liberal states can start hammering at the idea and perhaps manage to get it legalized in their state. My prediction is that the first step to it, will happen in a state government. Once that state allows it, the deck of cards has started to fall. If Massachusets allows civil unions, then that could well be the start of it.

Why is it that analyzing politics is sooo exciting?
post #76 of 134
I am more the less on the fence about the issue...but I DO think that making a constitutional amendment against this issue is wrong...especially when the ammendments are so that we DON'T discriminate against certain groups of people. I believe Senator Kerry was right in saying that Bush just wants to cause a stir before beginning his re-election campaign and that decisions like this should ultimately be left up to the states (which makes sense because they are the ones issuing the marriage liscences). I also believe big Arnold made a good point (which I can't believe I ever thought I'd say Arnold said something intelligent) when he said that San Fransisco doesn't have the right to over turn state law and what's next...a city or town making concealed weapons legal simply because they don't agree with state law? My question is: were all of those same-sex marriages that took place in San Fransisco even legit?
post #77 of 134
Thread Starter 
I had seen an interview of Wolf Blitzer with the S.F. mayor and he is arguing that the law against homosexual marriages of California goes against the state constitution. I better read it.
post #78 of 134
Thread Starter 
Just read it... from my first read the San Francisco mayor has got a series of good arguments that could stand in a court.


Constitution of the state of California, Article 1, Sec. 4.

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs.


We can try saying that by banning it, then there is a law concerning establishment of religion. that it does not allow the people whose religious beliefs allow for gay marriage to practice their beliefs, and that it sponsors religions that forbid gay marriage.



SEC. 7.

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or

We can say that the law is giving priviledges to heterosexual people that are not being given to homsexual people.


Sec. 8 A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing
a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race,
creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.


This one is shaky, but it can be said that the principle applies.

What do you think of the possibilities of a law banning gay marriage being unconstituonal under california law?
post #79 of 134
Considering the Federal Court that presides over California, I'd say it is a pretty good chance that they would overturn the law if it were challenged up to them. This is also the Federal Court that ruled that the Pledge of Allegiange is Unconstitutional.

Actually, up until very recently, the South (i.e. Bible Belt) was a stronghold of Democrats dating back to the Carpetbaggers after the Civil War. That's why it was such big news when so many Southern states voted in Republican Representatives and Governors.

As far as the 5-6% of homosexuals in the population, I think if they are playing the numbers game they will still be more concerned with the ~80% of the population that is Christian.

Yes, Dems have played the "Being with God and the Devil at the same time" trick for a long time. Personally, I think that's what's catching up with them and why they are losing ground nationally. Talking out of both sides of your mouth will do that. I don't necessarily agree with all of the Republican tenents, but at least they are consistent.
post #80 of 134
Thread Starter 
I do remember what the California federal court did. But this is a state matter, so I guess it will end up in the State Supreme Court in Sacramento. Are those liberal? I've heard that what has California sliding into the sea is the weight of all the liberals.

As for the amount of voters, there is one detail: The vast majority is Christian. but the ones who constitute a threat are the fundamentalists who think that their religion is the only good religion on earth and that marriage needs to be "protected"

So... if they lose either side they will run the risk of losing... remember Bush is the antichrist, and they have to win every darn possible vote, so they have to play the old trick of being with devil and God at the same time. I don't know what are their true feelings about it, but we will know, when election season is over.

However, the only thing that would stop definitely, the legalization of gay marriage in the US is precisely the constitutional amendment (which, fortunately is short of impossible), otherwise it is just a matter of time, before some state legalizes it which taking into account what is going on in Mass. and Cal. it won't be long before that happens.
post #81 of 134
I don't necessarily agree with all of the Republican tenents, but at least they are consistent.
May I respectfully disagree?

The Republicans profess a desire for small government and state rights. However, the current Republican administration is growing gov't like crazy and is forcing many new federal rules onto the states (i.e. No Child Left Behind, potential constitutional amendment on marriage, etc). So, I think the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats at saying one thing and doing the opposite! IMO...
post #82 of 134
Point well taken, Renae. The current Administration hasn't held with quite a few Republican tenents. Might I also offer up the Patriot Act which has eroded personal protections more than any since piece of legislature in recent history?
post #83 of 134
Not to mention deficit spending like there's no tomorrow...

On the marriage issue, my initial response is the classic one that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.

However, I have a couple of relatives who are gay, and both have been in long-term (15+ years) relationships with their partners, which is longer than a lot of man-woman marriages last. I don't understand why homosexual couples who are willing to show their commitment & responsibility to their partner should be denied the basic considerations that are given to married couples.

I think the problem might be solvable by granting marriage with the same benefits of a man-woman marriage to gay couples, but simply calling it something else(like a civil union) to avoid offending people with a more conservative bent. That way everyone might be happy.
post #84 of 134
I haven't read the whole thread but here's my two cents.

I support equality. I feel that if I were to oppose gay marriages, it would make me a hyprocrite.

I can understand the anger and controversy surrounding the issue. There are arguments for good values, children need a parent of each sex and religious grounds.

Now correct me if I'm wrong here. There's just a few things I do not understand.

What is the fear of good values and morals sliding after two people declare their love? Take a good look around. How many things do people already complain about already? How many events occur that cause pain and anguish to millions? What difference is it going to make if homosexuals are denied marriage? It will not set the world on a path to world peace.

Are there not already several generations of adults across the world who grew up in a single parent environment? Does this not mean that they only had a parent of one sex? Will social policy now have to change so that such children are forcibly removed and placed in homes where there is a parent of each sex? Now I do know that not all single parent homes were idyllic and not all children were able to have an adult role model from each sex, and not all homes had money for luxuries. Was this perhaps the sole parent had to work longer in order to provide for themselves and the child(ren)? This leaves little time for the parent to spend time with their child(ren), let alone getting to know other adults that would be suitable role models.

Ideally a household with two parents is considered to be better. One parent is the main breadwinner while the other is the stays at home for most of the time. It certainly becomes a problem when both parents are of the same sex. The child grows up thinking that it is the norm for two people of the same sex to sleep in the same bed. Isn't that the crux of the issue, not the well being of the child? But what if the parents sit down and tell the child what 'normal' is and teaches their child to have an open mind and be tolerant of people who are different? What if this child grows up with good morals and values and hetrosexual? What then? (After all, homosexuality doesn't breed homosexuality just like hetrosexuality doesn't breed hetrosexuality.)

Whatever happened to the freedom of practising whatever religion you so wish? There are three core religions in the world with many sub-groups if you will. Certainly in this day and age, people do keep an open mind and realise that their religion is not the only one that exists.

When did the last remaining puddles of tolerance dissipate?
post #85 of 134
There's an interesting article in today's NY Times about the GOP's reaction to a proposed constitutional amendment:

February 26, 2004
Some in G.O.P. Cool to Gay Marriage Ban

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Despite President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, some Congressional Republicans are cool to the idea and say they want to move more deliberately than the White House.

The amendment proposal does enjoy broad support among many Republicans in the House and Senate. But the wariness among others is complicating the already difficult task of moving a constitutional change through the House and Senate. The last successful amendment initiated in modern times by Congress was in 1971, when the voting age was lowered.

Republican lawmakers would have to provide the bulk of the votes to approve any amendment outlawing gay marriages. While they say they want to protect traditional matrimony, many are not yet convinced that an amendment is necessary.

"I am going to listen to all the analyses of why the statute we have on the books will not hold up," said Senator George Allen of Virginia, a member of the Republican leadership, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act. The law, passed in 1996, relieves states of any obligation to recognize gay marriages performed in a state where they are legal.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said he and others were also interested in how the Defense of Marriage Act and state prohibitions on gay marriage played out in the courts.

"I think it is probably going to be a slow process, a deliberate process until there is more of an indication of what direction the courts are going in," said Mr. King, who said he would vote for such an amendment if necessary. "You don't want to vote for a constitutional amendment unless you really have to."

House Republican leaders were carefully plotting strategy on the amendment, hoping to avoid missteps that could lead to an embarrassing defeat if the proposal, which requires a two-thirds majority for approval, were to reach the floor. Lawmakers and aides said the political risk for Republicans in swing and moderate districts was less a consideration than making certain the amendment could prevail.

They said there was no need to rush into what is an extended process and that they needed to reach a consensus among their members and count potential Democratic votes.

"Why take the chance when you can use the time to shore up as many Republicans as you can," said Stuart Roy, a spokesman for House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas. "There is no particular reason for haste."

At the same time, many Republicans say they have already concluded that embedding the ban into the Constitution is the only way to keep marriage exclusively between men and women, given recent court rulings and actions by local officials.

"I'm not a fan of going that route," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has opposed past amendment proposals. "But I think this is preferable to having a couple of judges in one state determining what every other state's policy ought to be."

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, a main Senate advocate of the amendment, expressed a similar view.

"We cannot simply sit idly by, in my opinion, and let activist judges radically redefine the institution of marriage when it stands in stark relief and defiance of the will of the American people," he said.

Senate Republicans, who will have a hearing on the marriage issue next week, appear more eager to move than the House. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3, Senate Republican, has suggested that the amendment could reach the floor in the next few months, though others doubt that timetable.

Constitutional amendments on a wide range of issues are a Congressional staple but almost never advance. Since World War II, Congress has voted in favor of only seven amendments, five of which were eventually ratified by the states. The last addition to the Constitution was the 27th amendment, dealing with Congressional pay, which was ratified in May 1992, two centuries after being approved by Congress in 1789.

Since winning control of the House in 1994, Republicans have pushed a variety of pet constitutional amendments, from a balanced budget to a prohibition against burning the flag. None have cleared both chambers.

"I have always had grave reservations about amending the Constitution," said Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California. "We have done so very few times and I think for the right reasons. The founding fathers make it very tough."

Yet amendments that do emerge from Congress stand a strong chance of being ratified. John R. Vile, a political scientist at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, said that of more than 10,000 amendments that had been introduced in Congress, just 33 had won the required majorities. But 27 of those were ratified.

"That indicates that, by and large, the hard part is getting the majority in Congress in the first place," said Mr. Vile, who has compiled an encyclopedia on amendments.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
post #86 of 134
I think it is wrong yet what others do is their own business
post #87 of 134
Thread Starter 
JC, that is just by statistics, but in truth, it isn't that easy when it reaches the states.

It has to be approved by the legislatures of 38 states. That means that you can afford the luxury of no more than 12 states not approving it. At the second 13 states fail to approve it, its dead.

Each state is a bicameral state, so it means that you need only 7 state legislative houses, to fail approving it for it to fall apart.

Taking into account all the hoopla there will be in every single state, and the amount of very liberal states, which will not approve it. It's impossible.
post #88 of 134
Here in BC where I live, gay marriages are legal now. What will be next anyways. I don't agree with the whole gay marriage thing...call it something else BUT NOT marriage. According to the Bible, marriage is when there is a MAN and a WOMAN are joined together...not a man and man. Call it something else. I don't really care about the whole gay marriage thing. And besides, theres nothing any of us can do about it now...and everyone deserves the same rights even though I don't think that gay marriages should be legal...but people can do whatever they want, marry member of the same sex...as long as it doesn't affect me.
post #89 of 134
Can I just also mention something that is rather ironic. There is a conservative push in USA to save the sanctity of marriage between two people. To do this, it is felt that the constitution must be changed to state clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman. Isn't this also changing the definition of marriage?
post #90 of 134
I'd like to toss my 2 cents in here if I may.
We are a Country founded on some basic tenants and premises.
One of those begins:

"We the people..." No where does it say "We the heterosexual christian people..." The United States Constitution is the basic document on which our society is based, and it survives because of its marvelous simplicity.

Furthermore we have some additional basic tenants we abide by. One of those is this Amendment to the Constitution:

Article 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. (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.)

2 things on this one:
1)"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
2)"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Those are clear cut in my mind. Nowhere does it state that one has to have a certain sexual preference in order to qualify for something that explicitly states "any person". I'd like to think we have evolved somewhat in the last 135 years since this amendment was ratified. A constitutional amendment should be the very last resort as a remedy. Not the first. As an aside, I'm a lifelong Republican.
<Putting soapbox away>
My $.02 worth. Feel free to throw the pennies back at me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages