A thought about gay marriage amendments....

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sure you've heard this before - but I don't understand amendments banning gay marriage. Going beyond the fact that I don't understand why its acceptable to codify discrimination against a class of people in this day and age, I don't understand the argument that gay marriage destroys regular marriage.

 

Partially because I don't buy the argument that your marriage means less if two guys get the same legal rights as a married couple as you do. The meaning of marriage is between two people, and not the state. Giving someone else the same rights you enjoy doesn't mean that you are losing these rights. Well, until a lot of these amendments pass.

 

The one that passed in Texas leaves the door open for invalidating every existing marriage in the state. The one that's proposed in Virginia may prevent unmarried couples from being protected in events like domestic abuse, regardless of their sexuality. Although the Attorney General says that this isn't the case, judges make that decision. And they made that decision in Ohio - and guess what, straight unmarried couples who are victims of domestic abuse? They aren't protected.

 

I think the idea of messing with marriage can be dangerous for a society... but it only seems dangerous to me when you take rights away.

[sox4lifeinPA]

The meaning of marriage is between two people, and not the state

 

You answered yourself. Many people believe that someone or something made a distinction between male and female for a reason and those reasons culminate in marriage, procreation, and development of a male and female role model to that child. ( I love the "homosexuality exists throughout nature" arguement....humans don't eat their babies...which exists thoughout nature as well)

 

Marriage and legal rights are two different beasts. As i've said before, the gay rights movement is myopic and hypocritical. They're only asking for equal rights for themselves, when they should be asking for equal rights for EVERYONE. If you believe that two gay men or two women should be afforted the same rights as a heterosexual couple, then ANY two people should be able to enter into that same kind of union, regardless of relation.

 

When it comes to actual ceremonies, I think churches should stay away from the issue either way. Unity goes out the window when you mess with such things. Romans 14 comes to mind.

 

 

So from a person standpoint, it's easy to see why people don't like this topic. From a government standpoint, I think you have an arguement, but as I said, it should envelope all people.

[FlaSoxxJim]

When it comes to actual ceremonies, I think churches should stay away from the issue either way. Unity goes out the window when you mess with such things. Romans 14 comes to mind.

 

Romans 14 does indeed cover my feelings on the subject as well.

 

I'm thinking the verses about not judging one another or putting up stumbling blocks for each other, and letting each person give account of himself to his God. Or the parts about following after things that make for peace and that build one another up. Maybe especially the part where Paul tells his Christian audiances to keep their faith between themselvs and their God.

 

Every once in a while Paul gets it right.

Edited November 5, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[EvilMonkey]

Why can't gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight couples thru a civil union? That law change would be alot easier to make, and would let the straight people keep 'marriage' to themselves. If the ultimate objective is to get the same legal rights, what difference does a name make?

[Rex Kickass]

I'm pretty much on the same boat with that actually EM. Although some do argue that separate but equal has been found unconstitutional before and so that this really isn't an option.

 

But gay marriage amendments don't just ban marriage, they ban civil unions too. They also ban a whole lot of other things on accident.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Why can't gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight couples thru a civil union? That law change would be alot easier to make, and would let the straight people keep 'marriage' to themselves. If the ultimate objective is to get the same legal rights, what difference does a name make?

Well, there's the wingnut side that says that merges the state and Christian theology (I'm looking at you Dr. James Kennedy and James Dobson from Focus on the Family) so that would not be possible with a large voting block of conservative evangelical voters.

 

Logic, reason driven people like the two of us who agree in giving the same legal rights to people would be fine with 'civil unions', 'marriage' or whatever the Hell else they want to call it. But this growing movement against the Enlightenment values that founded America and to replace it with a strict quasi-Puritanical sense of Christianity that has resonated with a large population of voters will greatly inhibit any progress. Too many people think that being gay is a 'choice' without thinking that if a person's sexuality is a choice, do people then choose to be heterosexual?

 

Marriage is a civil contract in our society and should be given to adults who would like to partake. Unfortunately the crew jackboot Christians who have a lot of power and publicity want government to impose their moral code on everybody, like it or not.

 

And to add to Rex's legal basis...

In 1872, Burns vs State and the Alabama Supreme Court declared a ban on inter-racial marriage unlawful. Relying on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, the court stated that marriage was a contract and that blacks had the right to make any contract which a white citizen may make. Just put in "straight" and "homosexual" in for black and white. You can even add Loving vs Virginia (1967):

 

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

[BHAMBARONS]

Here in AZ Prop 107 looks like it will fail. It if I am not mistaken would be the first to do so in a long time.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Why can't gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight couples thru a civil union?

 

 

because such a law supporting this act would be as discriminating as the law reads now, except you're only excluding a smaller segment of the population. Any TWO people should be allowed to form a civil union. If it's about rights, this is the ONLY right thing to do.

 

by the way, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages is as idiotic as prohibition.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Romans 14 does indeed cover my feelings on the subject as well.

 

I'm thinking the verses about not judging one another or putting up stumbling blocks for each other, and letting each person give account of himself to his God. Or the parts about following after things that make for peace and that build one another up. Maybe especially the part where Paul tells his Christian audiances to keep their faith between themselvs and their God.

 

Every once in a while Paul gets it right.

 

This is an extremely touchy subject that I don't begin to have the elegance to respond properly. I respect both sides of the arguement and that has only come with time. I know that we have grace sufficient for all of our failures and I thank God for my ever expanding perspective on such issues.

 

grace and peace be on everyone.

[Texsox]

I believe that as a matter of public policy, the government should only recognize a legal entity that is available to any two individuals of legal age.

 

If, in addition to this legal contract, a couple wishes to have a ceremony performed and wish to call this union a marriage, or whatever, I am happy for them.

 

As the next Governor of Texas, the Jewish Cowboy, and humorist, Kinky Friedman says, "may the God of your choice, bless you".

 

BTW, Rex, between the political campaigns, booking cruises, and posting here, when the hell would you have time to get married?

[vandy125]

I have been reading one of C.S. Lewis' books lately, and I think that he has some thoughts on marriage that make a lot of sense to me. He is actually talking about divorce, but I think that his thoughts can also pertain to gay marriage as well.

 

I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I do find it relevant. It is from his "Mere Christianity" book, which I am finding to be a very good read.

 

I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question--how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know that I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marraige: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforeced by her on her own members. The distinction ought ot be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I have been reading one of C.S. Lewis' books lately, and I think that he has some thoughts on marriage that make a lot of sense to me. He is actually talking about divorce, but I think that his thoughts can also pertain to gay marriage as well.

 

I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I do find it relevant. It is from his "Mere Christianity" book, which I am finding to be a very good read.

 

can you give the chapter for that? That's an amazing quote, but not surprising, because lewis is da man.

[vandy125]

can you give the chapter for that? That's an amazing quote, but not surprising, because lewis is da man.

 

It is chapter 6, "Christian Marriage" in Book Three on Christian Behaviour. IMO, one of the best reads on Christian marriage that I have come across.

[FlaSoxxJim]

can you give the chapter for that? That's an amazing quote, but not surprising, because lewis is da man.

 

That he was, that he was.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

That he was, that he was.

 

 

 

where's the "boo" smilie?

 

 

 

ok...I LOVED IT!