posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 12:18 PM
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
How is it a ban on civil liberties.
38 States define marriage as a man and a woman. It seems to me that an amendment would just keep all the states on the same page. But hell, let's
just have the states fighting each other over this.
That's the way to keep the country unified.
Okay, Lincoln. Whereas I submit the way to keep the country united is NOT to impose a ban on state's rights...YET. The only national ammendment I
would see as being worthy of keeping the union would be either allowing gay unions or marriages in ALL STATES, making arbitrary bans unconstitutional.
But we're not there yet.
Just like in the civil right's desegregation issue, we first allowed states that were ready to lead the way, then made a national imperative forcing
backwards mouthbreating states into this century. Your idea is to force those few progressive states to the will of those backwards mouthbreathing
states and a handful of Republicans. No thank you.
I'm not suggesting states shouldn't be allowed the right to be backwards mouthbreathers FOR NOW... but there's no sense in mandating regression on
a national level.
News Flash: Massachusett's doesn't give a rat's ass what Georgia or the other 38 states you mentioned want Massachusett's to do. And one day, like
it or not all 50 states will be on board with gay rights. I'm not saying you have to do it now, and neither is any democrat. Just giving you a
If you don't believe me, look at civil right's issues of the past. The South had their ideas of how to keep the union too. Bigotry, like racism,
will never be institutionalized on a national level again, or at least not for long.