Homosexual Marriage

[sammigurl61190]

Conservative Roll-Call:

Ronald Reagan: divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan: who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole: divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich: divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader: divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas: divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan: divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California: divorced
George Will: divorced
Sen. Lauch Faircloth: divorced
Rush Limbaugh: Rush and his current wife Marta have six (6) marriages and four (4) divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia: Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?"
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York: divorced
Sen. John Warner of Virginia: divorced (once married to Liz Taylor)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia: divorced
Henry Kissinger: divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho: divorced
Sen. John McCain of Arizona: divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio: divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York, Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker: divorced

Don't let homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage…

The current batch of conservatives are doing a fine job without anyone's help!!

I think the whole issue of homosexual marraige shouldn't even be an issue! It's the exact same thing as heterosexual marraige. Just the stupid homophobic of America need to get a grip.

[swymir]

I agree. There really isn't an issue here.

[rklenseth]

I agree that homosexual marriage should be allowed since the only purpose for it at the government level is financial and land ownership.

But you have to remember that marriage is a state's sovereign right to determine not the Federal governments and that is how should be so you really need to talk your state government into it.

Plus, the Federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses anyway.

Also, both Vermont and Massachusetts have made it legal for homosexuals to be married. I'm not sure how many other states have done this but I know those two have since I only live about 20 minutes from both states.

[g1asswa1ker]

Did you know that marriage liecenses didn't exist till just after the civil war. Hmmm wonder why. Could it be so a Judge ( a white male ) could say no to inter-racial unions.

Just makes you wonder. Why must the few feel they overwhelming need to control how another lives? Can anyone please explain this.

[Der Zauberer]

Well I don't know whether the list of apparently licentious conservative politicians provides a very strong argument.
But marriage is definitely a reserved power, not a delegated power in the United States, so the idea of the national government's forcing states to allow homosexual marriages is a little disturbing in consideration to the country's Federal system of government--as is the idea of the Constitution's banning it (that proposal's more a joke than anything else I think).

Of course there is the issue of states' having to respect other states' contracts, which could actually undermine states rights in this situation. But that could be remedied somewhat less drastically, if no more easily.

Marriage was initially a religious institution, but in many places it is clearly a social institution. Since the idea of marriage in those places includes homosexual marriage, naturally they should be legally acceptable in those states. However, all states should issue civil unions I think, at the least, because the distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships has been effectively blurred socially, if not religiously and scientifically. And governemnt is a social institution, after all, not a religoius or scientific one (especially anti-scientific with Mr. Bush )

So, in short: ideally, yes, though should be allowed, though the feds shouldn't try to effect the change itself.

[g1asswa1ker]

I think federal law show step in if we wait on the states to get a clue it will never happen a state gov't is far easier to munipulate. The christian coalition couldn't stand keeping there noses out. They would love to just step in and ensure there way or the highway. Just like they have F*cked up everything else. They allows have some knuckle head worming some little law under the radar and hooking it to something it shouldn't. I can't wait for a president that puts the smack down on that practice.

[rklenseth]

Federal law should not step in. Marriage is a right reserved by the state governments.

You must understand that the Federal Government is already far to powerful and no more power should be given to that centralized institution that should have very little power as was originally planned by the Founding Fathers because a powerful, centralized government would allow the trampling of people's rights far more easier.

In fact there are already too many things the Federal Government does that is unconstitutional. Why give it another one? And if Federal law was to step in since the president doesn't have any real power (the real power is the Congress and the Supreme Court; president is only the scapegoat for the two) and since the Congress and the Supreme Court is controlled by Conservatives, I think Federal law would swing againt homosexual marriage.

[g1asswa1ker]

My statement about the Fed's stepping in was ment that they should put states and themselves in check and remove the license all together. It's not needed. No one should be able to tell me weather I can or can't marry someone or a dozen someones or what the sex is.

[Bran-Muffin]

>.< dammit! Miss click and puts a vote on no. Needs to be a way to change votes on this damn forum >.<

[rklenseth]

My statement about the Fed's stepping in was ment that they should put states and themselves in check and remove the license all together. It's not needed. No one should be able to tell me weather I can or can't marry someone or a dozen someones or what the sex is.

If it is religion then yes they can since there is an amendment in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion.

But the states use it to determine financial and land ownership purposes. When you get married by the state it pretty much makes you one entity with the person you are being married to so lets say you die, go into a coma or whatever then your other half would be able use the property and finances the way they see fit. That is really the only purpose of marriage under the state. It has nothing to do with religion, or beliefs, or love, or any of that.

[Der Zauberer]

Yes, getting rid of the marriage licenses would signficiantly affect the tax and household financial system, I think (not being a lawyer or anything)

But, not that this has anything to do with homosexual marriage, I think the President does have some power; he has the veto (line-item at that, right?), which is hard to override in most cases, and the ability to chose the members of the surpreme court, and is commander-in-chief of the military, and the chief of state, and executes what congress and the judicial branch say, among other things.

But I agree the national government, if it does anything, will damage the legal rights of homosexuals--at least until the composition of the courts or of Congress changes signficantly.

I think it might be a bit melodramatic and giving them too much credit to say the Christian Coalition has ****e* everything up. They have little more political sway than American demographics suggest they should. (i.e. it's their right to influence politics, just as it's the ACLU's right and the NRA's right and the Socialist Party's right). That's how democracy works.

[nitefyre]

>.< dammit! Miss click and puts a vote on no. Needs to be a way to change votes on this damn forum >.<

lol same here. =D I was looking for "I do not care" in the tone of I'm soo unimportant in the whole views of things, and still I should not givashit, instead these politicians who should be worrying bout homeland security and shit are bothered with this and don't mind being bothered with it. *shrugs*

The feds wouldn't even be able to intefere had the Acts of Confederations still be in place.

[Der Zauberer]

The articles of confederation? *grimaces* Wont even get into that one

[rklenseth]

Articles of Confederation weren't that great. Too many problems such as not allowing the Federal government any power at all and giving all the power to the state governments.

Some would claim that the Federal Government has now been given to much power under the US Constitution.

I feel that a happy median should be found as long as it doesn't sacrifice the rights of the people.

[kroner]

yeah, the AoC was basically like a UN for the 13 seperate countries. not much power at all.