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.

 

SOCIAL: Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Within the last year the subject of same sex marriage has become a hotbed for discussion. The Republican Party seems united against allowing same-sex marriages to be legal. The Democratic Party is somewhat split on the issue mostly based on geographical location. As for me personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman end of story.
 

Now for a little history. It was not until after the Civil War that black Americans could legally marry and not until after 1967 could mixed couples marry. Currently there same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts if they already or plan to move to that state.

The reason the Republican Party sees a need for a constitutional amendment is that recently activist judges have been redefining the meaning of marriage. In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.[1] Congress attempted to correct this issue with the fore mentioned act yet judges continue to redefine state law. So in order to bring clarity to this ambiguous topic an amendment to define marriage is needed.

Here is a graph that represents the laws governing same-sex marriages across the United States.


Since this map was created Ohio passed a law banning same-sex marriages.

Adding to the flavor of this debate is the idea of Civil Unions which is basically marriage under a new name.

So how do the parties line up on this heated subject.


[1] www.lectlaw.com...


[edit on 4-8-2004 by BlackJackal]




posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Another bit of information is that in New Hampshire there is precident stating gay sex is not really intercourse so in effect there would be no way for a gay couple to consummate a marriage if they had one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Libertarian position may be boiled down to the simplest principal: If it does not have a direct harmful impact on other individuals, it is permissible. In other words, who cares? Let people be with whom they want and you can do the same. Government has no business interfering with the actions of two consenting adults.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   

If it does not have a direct harmful impact on other individuals, it is permissible


The Conservative slant on this is that it could be harmful. If gays are allowed to marry then they would in turn have all the rights of other married individuals including adoption. This could in turn be extremely damaging to the children in question both physiologically and sexually. Although definitive proof of this would require studies conservatives are simply unwilling to allow a study that could possibly damage a life.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
To quote a former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau:

"The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

I agree.

This is a social issue not a partisan political one. The Republican Party's recent attempt to amend the Constitution and include for the first time in its history the "negation" of a right, rather than an inclusion is cause for concern. The Constitution is not a document that should be amended every time a new administration is sworn into office. It would create bad precedent and weaken the Supreme Law of the Land.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

The Conservative slant on this is that it could be harmful. If gays are allowed to marry then they would in turn have all the rights of other married individuals including adoption. This could in turn be extremely damaging to the children in question both physiologically and sexually. Although definitive proof of this would require studies conservatives are simply unwilling to allow a study that could possibly damage a life.


I have often wondered if a Libertarian was just an extreme Conservative who was also an atheist. Or more accurately, a Conservative is a more central Libertarian with a Judeo-Christian value system.

The burden of proof would be on such a study to prove that same-sex parenting is harmful. I would put forth that no such effect if it existed could be accurately measured; therefore the proof could not be furnished.

For the sake of argument, if such a proof could be furnished, it would still need to prove more harmful then to be in a non-family situation (orphanage) which I think you might agree would seem to be worse then no family structure at all, traditional or otherwise.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer
Libertarian position may be boiled down to the simplest principal: If it does not have a direct harmful impact on other individuals, it is permissible. In other words, who cares? Let people be with whom they want and you can do the same. Government has no business interfering with the actions of two consenting adults.


Not chasing you around the forum but could you provide link to put forth this position on gay marriage?



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
[If gays are allowed to marry then they would in turn have all the rights of other married individuals including adoption. This could in turn be extremely damaging to the children in question both physiologically and sexually. Although definitive proof of this would require studies conservatives are simply unwilling to allow a study that could possibly damage a life.

So conservatives can't site a study that shows physiological damage
Nor can they site a study that shows "sexual" damage
But they are sure it would happen anyway?

Let me show you some positions very qualified and very eminent organizations have made on the matter:



In June the American Medical Association endorsed legislative efforts to allow adoption of a child by a same-sex partner in gay and lesbian relationships.




The American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have each endorsed similar positions against discrimination of same-sex parents.




In a similar policy statement, the American Academy of Family Physicians said, "There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills ... when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation."


None of these organizations can find any inherent risk, danger, etc. to a childs well-being simply because they are raised by gay or lesbian parents.

And just so you know I'm an equal opportunity finger pointer - I find the democrats waffling on this issue to be disgraceful. Either you support the issue or you don't.

ED: sp



[edit on 4-8-2004 by Bleys]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Bleys says


And just so you know I'm an equal opportunity finger pointer - I find the democrats waffling on this issue to be disgraceful. Either you support the issue or you don't.


The issue in this thread is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There is no waffling by Kerry and Edwards on this issue. They do not approve of gay marriage, but they are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it. They believe the issue should be decided by each state.

Kerry has a similar position on abortion. He does not personally approve, but he is opposed to any law restricting a woman's freedom to choose.

The issues of gay marriage and abortion are examples of how Republicans try to impose their personal standards of morality on the private behavior of others. Democrats do not try to impose their own moral standards on the private behavior of others by using government coercion.

Those of you who think there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats should take careful note of this distinction, as exemplified by the issues of gay marriage and abortion.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Well me personally I don't really like gays, mostly because I'm Christian. But I will at least acknowledge that they should have equal rights. I see no harm in allowing them to legally marry. The whole concept of its wrong in the eyes of God violates our concept of seperation of church and state. We have no solid evidence that says that gay marrige is harmfull. Its like how people wanted to deny the right to marry to african-americans. That did us no harm and I think it will be the same way with gay marriges. Its unconstitutional to ban gay marriges. And unless I'm mistaken marriges fall under the states. But the constitution does not allow for anybody to discriminate for things such as race, and beliefs or culture. So we can't make an amendment against gays but states can't really ban it either.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
[
Not chasing you around the forum but could you provide link to put forth this position on gay marriage?



Here you go

www.lp.org...

This covers not only gay marrige but also ALL forms of sex between consenting adults



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Thank Amuk. Concise, without preamble and to the point. I very much agree.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Those of you who think there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats should take careful note of this distinction, as exemplified by the issues of gay marriage and abortion.





And for those that want a party that will publicly support there rights and not just court them at election look at the Libertarians

We are for Gay rights and abortion and not JUST before elections. We also dont waffle on it, it is part of our tenents



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I apologize for not outlining this earlier but below is a link to the official stance on this issue taken by the Republican Party

www.gop.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Not chasing you around the forum but could you provide link to put forth this position on gay marriage?


Thx, Amuk for finding it first. There is an element of the party which flips the issue a bit and states that by not condemning the issue of homosexual marriage is an implicit governmental condonement of the issue, which is in turn a governmental sanction of the issue. That to be truly consistent the government needs to uniformly deny marriage to all parties. This is a fringe view.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Mainer]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
The issue in this thread is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There is no waffling by Kerry and Edwards on this issue. They do not approve of gay marriage, but they are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it. They believe the issue should be decided by each state.



I know this is supposed to be about the party lines but since a name has been brought into this discussion I feel it relevant to discuss the facts on the issue.

In 1996 Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act yet now he says he is for marriage being between a man and a women. Also he once attended a Gay Wedding.

So is this the waffling stance that the entire Democratic Party takes or only this candidate?



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
The issue in this thread is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There is no waffling by Kerry and Edwards on this issue. They do not approve of gay marriage, but they are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it. They believe the issue should be decided by each state.


This is akin to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the matter - let the states tell them no.

And it merely postpones the inevitable. What happens when gay couples seek marriages out of their respective states and then demand that their home state recognize their union? One way or another this is going to be decided on a federal level and the Democrats are going to have to deal with the fall-out from their "hands off" approach.

It's too bad that Kerry, who has always been supportive of gay rights, won't take the lead in a simple matter of civil rights.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Amuk says,


And for those that want a party that will publicly support there rights and not just court them at election look at the Libertarians

We are for Gay rights and abortion and not JUST before elections. We also dont waffle on it, it is part of our tenents


Are you implying that the Democrats do not "publicly support there rights and not just court them at election"??? If you are going to engage in meaningful debate with the Democrat/Liberal team, you must not misrepresent our position. Contrary to your implication, the Democratic Party supports gay rights and abortion rights, not just before elections, but all the time. There is no waffling. Stop buying into Republican propaganda that Kerry is a flip-flopper and waffler.

The fact is, either Bush or Kerry will win the election. If Kerry wins, the next President will support your positions on gay rights and abortion rights. If Bush wins, the contrary is the case.

The fact is, no Libertarian will be elected President or Senator for the forseeable future. Is there a Libertarian Congressman?

If you are really serious about building a third party, you should stop spending so much time and money on running candidates for higher office. You should start out at the local level, electing candidates for city council, mayor, county board, and local judiciary. Then progress to state legislators and other state offices like attorney general and state treasurer. Then offices like governor and congressman. When you have enough elected Libertarians holding these types of offices, then you can start running candidates for Senator and President.

You are just wasting your time running a Presidential candidate, and your complaints about not being taken seriously just make people laugh.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Let us not forget that slavery was once a State issue too. It is always a real issue where Constitution triumphs the States. The real question is does the protection of individual rights extend to homosexual marriage to the point of denial being a threat to the constitutional rights of the individuals.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
BlackJackal says


So is this the waffling stance that the entire Democratic Party takes or only this candidate?


The issue of this thread is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Kerry is opposed to such a constitutional amendment. He has never waffled on this issue. The examples you cite have nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join