Does anyone on this forum believe that banning gay marriage should be a constitutional amendment?
Should gay marriage even be a priority at this point, or would we be better served by focusing on the economy, the war on terror, or Irans nuclear ambitions?
Edit: I'm aware of the other thread about the amendment, but I'm not as concerned with your stance on it being an amendment as I am with how it should fit into our national priorities.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think allowing SSM is a priority. I also think it's inevitable under the current constitution. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised that people who are strongly opposed to civil SSM think the amendment is a priority right now.
However, I think the current push is purely political and hopefully ill-advised on the part of those who think making this an issue right now will have the same effect it had in the last elections. (Namely in galvanizing the conservative vote and spurring otherwise ambivalent voters in favor of Republicans).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The SSM issue is not an isolated issue. It is part of a much larger issue - the issue of national values.
I think our values as a society is perhaps the most important issue we face as a society, but I don't think it should be a high priority for our government, because governments have shown themselves to be extremely inept at attempting to manipulate the values of its people in a positive way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Gay marriage should be a priority right now.
But not for any "real" reason; it's just that gays make a helpful target for a party looking to corral its core voters in a grim-looking election year. It's a pure party strategy.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I definitely think it'd make more sense for us to be focusing on stopping the decline of the dollar, getting the heck out of Iraq, and finally committing to renewable sources of energy so we aren't all paying $5 a gallon by this time next year. It turns my stomach to see the real issues threatening our nation tossed aside each week as the Sunday morning talk shows toe the White House line on what their topic of the day will be. SSM, illegal immigrants? If the US continues to overspend, overpollute, and overextend its military forces the way it has for the past 6 years, I don't think it'll be long before "values" are the least of our concerns.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't even agree with the proposed amendment, as I understand it. So, no, I do not think it should be a priority now.
However, I don't think working on this amendment necessarily precludes working on that other stuff you mentioned. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, it "precludes" it in the sense that they can't debate and vote on two topics at the same time. The more time they spend on this, the less time they have to spend on other things.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I have decided I don't care about this issue anymore, except to say. We have so many real problems that our government should be working on. I think it is ridiculous they will spend so much time worrying about this. It's just an easy way to try and get some votes without having to do any real work.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Should we make it a priority for the first time in history to use the constitution as a tool for limiting the rights of US citizens, in order to make conservative relgious people happy? Absolutely not.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Should we make it a priority for the first time in history to use the constitution as a tool for limiting the rights of US citizens, in order to make conservative relgious people happy?
What about that 18th Amendment - the banning of alcohol?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Exactly. And Prohibition was idiotic. And got repealed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think that if defending marriage is a priority, there should be a constitutional amendment banning divorce.
Think about it. If there are too many kids dropping out of high school, do you ban a group of kids from going to high school, or do you find a way to stop kids from dropping out?
Marriage is in a shambles in this country. So rather than do something about the fact that so many marriages end in divorce, this brainiacs want to stop people who want to get married from getting married.
Not that this is anything but a cynical way for politicians to impress their more neanderthal constituents anyway. Note that Bush came out publically against this kind of amendment during the presidential campaign in 2004.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think Tres's point was that this wouldn't be the "first time in history".
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Ok, so I forgot prohibition.
Actually I'm glad you pointed that out, I try to avoid missing something that blatant in my arguments.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Actually thinking about it, there is a difference. Prohibition limited the rights of EVERYONE. A gay marriage amendment would limit the rights of a specific group of people.
I should have said, for the first time in history the constitution may be used as a tool to limit the rights of a group of people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The SSM issue is not an isolated issue. It is part of a much larger issue - the issue of national values.
I think our values as a society is perhaps the most important issue we face as a society, but I don't think it should be a high priority for our government, because governments have shown themselves to be extremely inept at attempting to manipulate the values of its people in a positive way.
I believe removing segregation was something a minority wanted and yet the government stepped in eventually and went against the general flow of things. Correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Actually thinking about it, there is a difference. Prohibition limited the rights of EVERYONE. A gay marriage amendment would limit the rights of a specific group of people.
It didn't limit my rights. I don't drink. In the same way, this amendment wouldn't limit the rights of straight people.
But it's clearly aimed at a group, which Prohibition was not. This is a deliberate attempt to harm a large segment of the American citizenry. And that should never be a national priority.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Actually thinking about it, there is a difference. Prohibition limited the rights of EVERYONE. A gay marriage amendment would limit the rights of a specific group of people.
They are more similar than you think. It's not as though one group of people could marry in one way and another group of people could get married in another way.
Of course it wouldn't impact everybody equally, but neither did prohibition. Although everybody was equally barred from alchohol under prohibition, it only directly affected those who wanted to. Likewise, under the FMA everybody would be equally barred from marrying someobody of their same sex, and this would only directly affect those who wanted to do so.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
And not banning it only affects those who do want to marry in the same sex.
You could stretch that logic pretty far. Banning inter-racial or interfaith marriages would only affect those who would want to enter such a relationship.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You could stretch that logic pretty far. Banning inter-racial or interfaith marriages would only affect those who would want to enter such a relationship.
You're exactly correct.
My point is that it's not that different from prohibition.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well it depends how you look at it. One argument could be that alcohol has actually been shown to be dangerous to those who choose not to drink. From drunk spousal abuse to drunk drivers.
But, yeah I see your point overall.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I believe removing segregation was something a minority wanted and yet the government stepped in eventually and went against the general flow of things. Correct me if I am wrong.
Banning segregation was not just an issue of values. It was an issue of political and social rights being violated.
The existence of SSM is not violating anyone's rights.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: And not banning it only affects those who do want to marry in the same sex.
Not banning it affects no one.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I don't fully understand the religious objections to same sex marriage. We already have religious marriage and civil marriage in this country. And while they usually coincide, they don't always. There are civil marriages not recognized by the church and religious marriages not recognized by the state.
In fact, we already have religious same sex marriages in this country, in some faiths and denominations. Not in mine, but I would never presume to impose the dicates of my religious beliefs on the country as a whole.
If you want to have a proper marriage in the eyes of the L'rd, then get yourself a church (or temple or mosque or synagogue) wedding. If you what you want is a civil marriage, how is that so different from a civil union? I don't seen how it would hurt anybody to allow civil unions in same-sex couples.
My husband and I have been married for almost 20 years, and I can not imagine how it would affect our marriage.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Damn, Tante. There you go, saying things more eloquently and concisely than me again.
I'll just add that given how fiercely many homosexual couples are fighting for the right to marry, against a divorce rate for heterosexual couples that hovers around 50%, they deserve at least the right to be taken seriously as tax-paying full citizens.
I don't know if I would go out and rally for an amendment that went the other way, but an ammendment banning same-sex unions is a slap in the face to a lot of people who don't deserve it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It's kinda hard to parse the responses to this "poll." It seems like it's full of double negatives.
I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment guranteeing the right to marry whoever you want to, provided they want to marry you back.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
On second thought, that could be used to claim I'm in favor of pedophile/child marriages, which I'm not.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I was going to start a thread similar to this, but it was going to be about flag-burning. SSM is getting more debate of course, but someone in the republican leadership (I think it was Bill Frist, iirc) said that banning flag-burning was one of his big goals for congress this year.
Is there even any flag-burning going on at protests these days? (In the USA, of course) Is this an issue anyone else is really urgent to address? It just seems like such a waste of time when there's so many important issues the government could be working on.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Well, it "precludes" it in the sense that they can't debate and vote on two topics at the same time. The more time they spend on this, the less time they have to spend on other things.
The amendment is stupid and a waste of time -- but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather leaders be wasting their time on such nonsense than passing more burdensome laws. I don't *want* them spending time on other things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's only going to take a couple days for them to work themselves into a frenzy for political purposes....and then vote it down.
It's fine with me. If they want to kill a little time proving that there isn't enough Congressional support for a law that restricts the rights of Americans, I can live with that, so long as we get back to actual governing afterwards.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)