It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Marriage Amendment: Good Idea?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The 10th amendment delegates all powers not enumerated in the constitution to the states. The federal government currently has no power over over marriage and has no authority to limit it in any form. However, if an amendment is introduced it would not only limit gay marriage, it would also have to give the federal government control over marriage. In other words, the only way they can limit it is if they first control it.

Whether you support the idea of gay marriage or not everyone can agree that this is a bad thing. There is an underlying issue here and it is upsurping more power from the states and the federal government taking more control. I personally do not support gay marriage but I believe that there is nothing I can do to stop it outside my state. Each state however, can pass laws and limit marriage on a state by state basis.

The only problem the Bush administration sees with this is due to Article 4 of the constitution which states, "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states" which basically means that if someone gets a gay marriage in Massachusets they can go to Georgia and the state has to honor that marriage.

But however you look at it, an amendment on this issue is a bad idea! Please get the word out!




posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Yeah, to "protect the sanctity and religious apsect of the moral tradition of marriage" Bush wants the government to regulate it.


That is backasswards.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Also, Bush supporting a bill to regulate peoples rights because they aren't like him. I swear, unless they are a white rich puppet christian straight republican he wants to ban it. But you don't always see him doing it, just his minions like the judge who believes in women being a mans slave and the judge that was obviously racist. So we have women being put down, anyone not white put down, and now gays put down. That leaves the poor and the non christian, or like him, a puppet christian. What is a puppet christian? Someone who says they are christian to get the churches to vote for them and nothing else. Shall not kill is christian, and how many people are dead because of him? Afganastan we had a reason, the terrorist leader of 9/11 was there. But Iraq? So far the reasons he stated have all been lies. No WMD's, no threat to America, no military build up. Just oil and the fact daddy couldn't do it.

Boo with amendments telling people who they can and can't love. Main arguement is that gay couples make a mockery out of marrige. You know the shortest straight marrige was? 6 hours. Then of course J LO, all her marriges were straight marriges and we see her not making a mockery out of the sanctity of marrige.(is it 4 or 5 now?) Or Brittany Spears with her 72 hour marrige. So it looks like you can't argue that gays will make a mockery out of marrige and that only straights think that marrige is a promise to be kept forever.

Also, marrige isn't religous to just christians. Jews have marriges, Islamic people have marriges, Hindus, Buddists, Wiccans, they all have marrige. So why are the christians acting like they own marrige and that only a christian marrige is a true marrige?



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Very soon he will go and regulate what religious organization is the right one for all of us,
And we will only be able to watch on TV the religious network. Because God talks to Bush. We will also have the prayer hour so our souls can be redeem to Bush God.

On the constitutional amendment, if he gets away with it, and he wins again the elections, be ready America, because Kind George will regulate what you eat too and when.


We already has seen Cheney's wife opposing to this amendment after all she did write a book about lesbian lovers the freedom of condoms. And lets not forget Cheneys own daughter sexual preferences. This lady is some liberal writer. I wonder if Cheney's heart attacks are link to his wife liberal writing.


books.thepricesearch.com...


dir.salon.com...


dir.salon.com...





[Edited on 13-7-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
With all the crap that's going on in the world, why is this an important issue? I mean, they know there's no way in hell the bill's going to pass so why are they doing it anyway? If by some....anti-miracle, the bill does pass it'll never get through the states. If it does get through the states there's going to be alot of defiance from local governments.

If they're trying to hurt Kerry, I don't see how this is going to do it. He's already made his position clear: Against gay marriage, for civil unions, against a constitutional amend.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
#in amend the thing......


JUST KEEP IT IN THE BEDROOM!!



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Hey, there is a great amendment!

New Amendment.

"If it doesn't involve the government, then stay out of it!"

They are worried that they won't even get 50 votes.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
With all the crap that's going on in the world, why is this an important issue?


It's not crap.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by lockheed
The 10th amendment delegates all powers not enumerated in the constitution to the states. The federal government currently has no power... over marriage. In other words, the only way they can limit it is if they first control it.


Or if they control you, it's much easier. See below.



...Article 4 of the constitution which states, "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states" which basically means that if someone gets a gay marriage in Massachusets they can go to Georgia and the state has to honor that marriage.


First, you assume marriage is a privilege, something you need permission to do.

Second, you assume you are a Citizen of a State. If you were, your life would be much different.

Article 4, Section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

You, more than likely have admitted or allowed (by contract) the federal government to own you. U.S. citizen = Federal Slave

That all to often question, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" is quite the trick.
According to the U.S. Constitution, there is no such thing, their are "Citizens of the United States", but no "citizens of the United States"

Don't believe me? Look yourself.

So when you admit you are a U.S. citizen, you admit you are a citizen of the federal government (Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and other territories)



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Any nation has the right to enact rules that define and protect their societies core values. If a democratic society determines that something is/isnt for theire culture, then they have the right to enact/ban it.

This is the basis of democratic principles and a sociological means to differentiate between cultures.

This does NOT make the given choice "right/wrong" per say, mearly the democratically derived will of the people.

It reflects both how a given culture percieves itself, as well as the perceptions that that culture represents to others.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Gay Marriage Amendment: The Best Amendment America will ever have to protect its contry from mindless people.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
While I can't say I agree that gays should be allowed to marry, I am glad the proposed amendment failed. This should be left up to the individual states to decide.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
While I can't say I agree that gays should be allowed to marry, I am glad the proposed amendment failed. This should be left up to the individual states to decide.


Thats not right because....

If California lets gay marriges then all other gays will come from other states to marry and then go back to their own states where they will now be offically a gay married couple.

SAY NO: TO GAY MARRIGES!!!!

Out,
Russian



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
See the deal is that if there is no national gay marriage law then it will ultimately come down to the supreme court to decide.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I bet that the supreme court is not going to dip into this issue and the constitution will not change.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
It would have been the first time an Amendment was added to our Constitution limiting the rights of the individual by the federal government. For those who never had civic class the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority.

Election time fodder for those that call themselves Christians and then judge someone that is different from them. God does the judging if those that claim themselves to be Christian remember.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I understand tradition and everything, that was my stance before...

But if we are going to progress as a people, we need to step out of the middle ages...

There are always going to be gay people, there were back in the 1600s...

I guess we're supposed to keep sweeping them under the rug everytime they try and come out and ask the "government/nanny" for permission to marry?

Did anyone see the comments the admin gave about gay marriages?? What a JOKE...

People, I understand it's a rather unusual thought for us heterosexuals, but this is another example of federal gov stepping into our lives and trying to legislate it...
Is this not wrong??
We don't need a nanny, we shouldn't even have gotten to this point..

The admin is just playing politics , who really gives a #?? Why should you give a #.. As long as they keep it in the bedroom...

Who's to say that guys who like it in the butt shouldn't be married??
Sexual preference shouldn't be a major factor in getting a measley marraige liscence.. Their already married in spirit, why make them suffer by getting a piece of paper??

Again, this is #ing government getting involved, Bush would be more favored if he would stop playing politics and have some humanity...

Really it's not as bad as everyone thinks it is... A #ing piece of paper... It's not like any of you are going contract the aids virus for approving gay marriage or anything.. We need to stop making these people suffer..
Let em do eachother up the butt in peace.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
on the other hand, should we allow a judge in Massachusetts decide the answer to the marriage question rather than have it openly debated in Congress and within state legislatures?



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Bah, let the homosexuals have the benefits of being married, it's not about anything else, I mean if it was wtf, I thought we are free to pratice any religion here in america. Therefor meaning not everyone has to abide by the christian moral laws.

"they're more of guidelines"

Desperate to control.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
There is no logical argument against gay marriage. If two people want to commit and raise a family then that is thier right protected by the constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The whole debate in congress is merely a ploy to get politicians stance on the issue. They know there will never be a 2/3's vote to ratify the constitution.

[Edited on 14-7-2004 by Narnia]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join