A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[spantol]

"Defense of Marriage" legislation is in the news again, with our president proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. From the outset, I was firmly against such an amendment, as I don't feel that protecting a social norm is a valid reason to go so far as to amend the U.S. Constitution. As a corollary of that, I'd prefer that if gay marriage has to be a legal issue, that it be handled by the states. Further, denying a privilege to people based solely on their sexual orientation strikes me (personally) as discriminatory, despite all of the contrary arguments I've seen presented. That, and my girlfriend works for a theater, so I'd never hear the end of it.

The more I think about it, though, the less I'd be opposed to a compromise amendment; one protected the religious ideal of marriage while at the same time protecting the rights of and extending the legal privileges associated with marriage to same-sex couples.

Something like this:


----------
Amendment 28:

Section 1. The Congress shall make no law that restricts the rights of the citizens of the United States on the basis of sexual orientation.

Section 2. To protect the sanctity of the religious institution of marriage, being a sacred union between a man and a woman, the legal construct of "marriage" shall be replaced by "civil union," being a legal union between two people. No legal distinction shall be made between a religious "marriage" and a legal "civil union."

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
----------

It seems to me that everybody wins. Traditional "marriage" as an institution is defended, and its definition codified, which seems to be what Bush and his supporters are after. Gays get equal privileges without a "seperate but equal" stigma, which seems to be what gay marriage proponents are after.

What do you guys think?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Too bad Bush is proposing this

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage&cid=544&ncid=716

[Kevmaster]

well...these are my thoughts:

1) your ammendment creates the togetherness of religion and state, and thats not allowed. Also, if you put it to a 'states rights' choice, would state B have to accept state A's marriage liscense as they do now, if its a homosexual couple? It becomes difficult to do as states rights

2) Personally, I think see both sides. If you allow man-man / woman-woman relationships, whats stoping man-woman-woman or man-man-woman-woman or man-animal marriages? However, I think that individual freedoms have to trump social norms. While we may see any and all of these as unnatural and unhealthy, neither I nor the government is in NO position to be able to tell you what to do with your life, so long as it hurts no one else. If you choose to marry another man, fine by me.

i guess that makse me an old conservative....personal freedoms and small, unintrusive government but one thats still able to kick *** and take names, protecting me (financially and my land) from the international markets.....oh well... F' the Republicans...

[tony3]

Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings.


I totally agree with that.

[grw4w34]

All the gay people are just looking for a tax break that a man and woman get when they get married. A man and woman can produce a child biologically, gay couples cant. Most people have kids when they get married. Dont get me wrong I dont have a thing against gay people, i just dont think they should get the benifit of a couple who has the opportunity to produce a new member to society.

[spantol]

Comments in-line:

Originally posted by Kevmaster
[B]1) your ammendment creates the togetherness of religion and state, and thats not allowed. Also, if you put it to a 'states rights' choice, would state B have to accept state A's marriage liscense as they do now, if its a homosexual couple? It becomes difficult to do as states rights

Actually, part of the point of the amendment was to seperate the religious and legal aspects of the current convention of marriage, the legal side being re-termed "civil union." Within the context of that amendment, it would no longer be a states rights issue, as the right of gays to participate in a civil union would be consitutionally protected.

2) Personally, I think see both sides. If you allow man-man / woman-woman relationships, whats stoping man-woman-woman or man-man-woman-woman or man-animal marriages?

I hate this argument. What's stopping beastiality and trinary unions? Social conventions and existing laws, neither of which are changed by this amendment.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by grw4w34
All the gay people are just looking for a tax break that a man and woman get when they get married. A man and woman can produce a child biologically, gay couples cant. Most people have kids when they get married. Dont get me wrong I dont have a thing against gay people, i just dont think they should get the benifit of a couple who has the opportunity to produce a new member to society.

what about unfertile men or woman?

[Impuls]

I always thought same sex couples having kids (adoption or through a 3rd-person) is wrong. Marriage, whatever, I'm not a huge fan of same-sex relationships but I also don't believe that you just one day wake up and thing "I want some hot butt sex". You can't really change the fact that you're gay so you live with it. Marriage shouldn't be banned for same-sex couples. Back to the whole kids thing, it's really bad to have two dads or two moms. The emotional pains experienced by that from the teasing of other kids and just the thought that your parents are freaking homosexuals. I could image that the son or daughter of a same-sex couple would spend a lot of money in therapy.

[spantol]

I'd be on board with this so long as you disallow sterile heterosexual couples from getting the same tax breaks. Gotta be fair, after all. [/tongueincheek]

Originally posted by grw4w34
All the gay people are just looking for a tax break that a man and woman get when they get married. A man and woman can produce a child biologically, gay couples cant. Most people have kids when they get married. Dont get me wrong I dont have a thing against gay people, i just dont think they should get the benifit of a couple who has the opportunity to produce a new member to society.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Impuls
I always thought same sex couples having kids (adoption or through a 3rd-person) is wrong. Marriage, whatever, I'm not a huge fan of same-sex relationships but I also don't believe that you just one day wake up and thing "I want some hot butt sex". You can't really change the fact that you're gay so you live with it. Marriage shouldn't be banned for same-sex couples. Back to the whole kids thing, it's really bad to have two dads or two moms. The emotional pains experienced by that from the teasing of other kids and just the thought that your parents are freaking homosexuals. I could image that the son or daughter of a same-sex couple would spend a lot of money in therapy.

Have you ever had any first hand experience with this.

My gay neighbors have a child, and as of right now he seems fine and completely normal.

[Restola]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
your ammendment creates the togetherness of religion and state, and thats not allowed.

How?

I have absolutely no religion, nor did my parents, and a marriage is defined to me as a man-woman relationship.

Thats like saying making murder illegal is a togetherness because its in the Bible.

[spantol]

I'd have to assume that two loving parents beats a broken home, no matter what the gender breakdown is.

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


Have you ever had any first hand experience with this.

My gay neighbors have a child, and as of right now he seems fine and completely normal.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by spantol
Actually, part of the point of the amendment was to seperate the religious and legal aspects of the current convention of marriage, the legal side being re-termed "civil union." Within the context of that amendment, it would no longer be a states rights issue, as the right of gays to participate in a civil union would be consitutionally protected.
the mere fact that you mention in the consitution that marriage is a religious diction and should therefore be kept in tact, thats associating religion and state. thats a no no.

I hate this argument. What's stopping beastiality and trinary unions? Social conventions and existing laws, neither of which are changed by this amendment.
you'll notice that i, right after, siad "However..." and proceded to ignore this arguement.

[ubooze]

We touched upon this topic in debate in school. Apparently, there is some sort of research that is being done or has been done that shows that it is a fact that children of a same-sex couple do undergo some sort of emotional problems caused by their peers and their abnormal parental organization(thats how I can best describe it).

I, myself, am totally against same-sex marriages and couples. I just don't agree with the whole idea and why it should be allowed, but then again, I am rather religious. But each has their own opinion.

Oh, and I will try to find out more bout that research, be it a credible source or not.

[spantol]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
he mere fact that you mention in the consitution that marriage is a religious diction and should therefore be kept in tact, thats associating religion and state. thats a no no.

Perhaps it could be worded differently, then, to state that the institution of marriage exists in the religious realm, and shall not fall under the auspices of government. A passing reference to religious isn't necessarily verboten, but I do see where you're going with this.

you'll notice that i, right after, siad "However..." and proceded to ignore this arguement.

I did, and I should have noted that. It wasn't meant to be directed specifically at you. I've just heard that argument come up in the media far too many times, without a proper rebuttal.