In Defense of Marriage

[CSpindizzy]

I'm daring to enter this as a topic of discussion. Here's a story to go with it.

With this I would ask if marriage was so important to preserve, you'd think that they'd actually address the hetero problems with divorce first. Considering the rate of divorce and how people run to Vegas drunk to get married only to get a divorce soon after, I'd figure they'd ban divorce first.

I'll even venture as far to say that all of the states' rights crowd should be up in arms with the Federal government taking on this issue. Marriage is truly a state domain. This plucks it out of that domain and forces states to succumb to the will of Congress. Of course it won't pass. But I'd be interested to see if the states' rights crowd would still be principled on the matter. I mean federal intrusion on a state issue.....it's evil and wrong on all other issues but fine when it comes to something like this.

Marriage

 

[hatvol96]

I'm daring to enter this as a topic of discussion. Here's a story to go with it.

With this I would ask if marriage was so important to preserve, you'd think that they'd actually address the hetero problems with divorce first. Considering the rate of divorce and how people run to Vegas drunk to get married only to get a divorce soon after, I'd figure they'd ban divorce first.

I'll even venture as far to say that all of the states' rights crowd should be up in arms with the Federal government taking on this issue. Marriage is truly a state domain. This plucks it out of that domain and forces states to succumb to the will of Congress. Of course it won't pass. But I'd be interested to see if the states' rights crowd would still be principled on the matter. I mean federal intrusion on a state issue.....it's evil and wrong on all other issues but fine when it comes to something like this.

Marriage

Marriage shouldn't be a state's issue, either. This entire debate is an example of what happens when the government tries to legislate principles best left to the church.

 

[GAVol]

I see what you are saying . . .. but I think this IS a federal issue to the extent that recognition of same sex marriage would extend federal benefits to those who otherwise could not receive them.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

the republicans pull this out every election year because they know they are losing the base on real issues like Iraq, immigration, and the government spying on American citizens. It has no chance of passing, it's just meant to stir up the base on issues that are REALLY important, like discriminating against an entire segment of the population.

As far as the states rights issue goes, the religious right really dosen't care about states rights when they see the opportunity to cram their religious views down the throats of the rest of us who don't share those views. :twocents:

 

[dan4vols]

I wonder if issues like these rise to the surface at upcoming election times because its bascially a no win issue that just is an endless debate like Roe vs Wade that takes attention away from issues that do matter to everyone, and not just a minority segment of the population issue. In other words they use the issue as a tool to kill time and avoid answering tough questions.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I see what you are saying . . .. but I think this IS a federal issue to the extent that recognition of same sex marriage would extend federal benefits to those who otherwise could not receive them.

If it is, take it through the courts. Let the courts argue over the issue rather than use pandering to talk about something that clearly has no chance of passing. If the conservatives think they have the courts, take lawsuits up the ladder.

You cannot sit here and argue the morals of marriage while there are so many problems with the way it is now. It's insane to say how sacred it is when half the politicians voting on this have committed adultery and/or married a few times.

Same goes for the states rights issue. One minute I'm told the federal government should be limited in power especially on issues left to the states or defined by the states but then these same people want the federal government to use its powers to supercede what the people of VT or MA vote for.

 

[CSpindizzy]

GA Vol....let me ask you what you think about the current case being argued here in GA about the amendment that was recently voted on. If you are aware of this issue, what is your opinion?

 

[volinbham]

I'll give you my view:

1) I don't think this is "amend the constitution" material.

2) Should be a state issue but courts and some public officials have usurped the power of the people

3) I support civil unions (the government part of marriage - spouse/partner rights, etc.)

4) I do not support gay marriage - the institution of marriage has always been conceived as man and woman. Why must that definition be changed to suit a minority class? If the man and woman part is not to be considered unchangeable, why not allow polygamous marriages?

In short, I'm fine with creating the same "partner rights" for gay couples as married couples get but would prefer to see marriage as an institution stay what it always has been -- call gay marriage something else.

 

[Orange-Neck]

I'm glad we have real leadership in Washington solving the real issues such as gays wanting to get married. The war in Iraq and deficits don't mean anything when the gays are about. Run for the hills, it's the end of civilization.

 

[OWB]

I just don't see why we can't just let people live their lives the way it makes them happiest. (As long as murdering doesn't make them happy) Gay marriage isn't going to make more people gay. These people don't want to bother you or turn you, they just want to live in peace like the rest of us. Who are we to tell people who they can and can't love and who they can and can't spend their lives with? Who are we to say who is their power of attorney?

You two can't get married but always remember the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Yeah right. The word freedom get narrower by the day. If we're not careful, the only freedom we will know is being able to pick a cereal out of 100 different brands.

Considering all the thing going on in the world right now, it's laughable that W even wants to bring this back up. It's a huge waste of time and nothing more than a tactic to take your eye off the ball.

To not want same sex couples to marry is one thing, to exploit them for politcal gains is another.

 

[volinbham]

Does this apply to 3 people in love?

 

[OWB]

Does this apply to 3 people in love?

:shakehead: Way to burn the soapbox man...

 

[OrangeSquare]

It is my belief that every American citizen be given the right to marry any other American citizen of their own choosing. For too long in this country, marriage has been misused and mishandled by the government. At this point and time the only way to reform it and return marriage to a place where it can be respected again is with government’s harsh intervention. It is my belief that too many individuals have been allowed into marriages uninformed of what awaits them. Because of this, I support the creation of a National Marriage Counseling Department (NMCD) which will oversee the counseling of citizens before they are issued their marriage licenses.

I call on congress to actively pursue a law that will ensure that couples of any race, gender, religion, origin or sexual orientation that are both U.S. citizens over the age of twenty-one that complete a forty hour course given by a NMCD official be recognized as fully and officially married under United States law and be afforded all rights as such.

As it is law to obtain a license to be married, I call on congress to make individuals require a license to be officially divorced. This would include an additional sixty hour class given by a NMCD official and the judgment of a United States judge. Anyone who is seeking to marry for a second or more time shall wait for a period of no less than three years from the date they obtain their divorce license and must retain copies of each marriage and divorce license awarded by the NMCD.

Both marriage and divorce licenses shall cost the individual citizen no less than two-hundred U.S. dollars. These collected funds shall be used only by the NMCD for materials related to the teaching and counseling of the American citizens.

How's that for a "different" idea.

Flame away.

 

[volinbham]

:shakehead: Way to burn the soapbox man...

Seriously (for argument's sake) if the definition of marriage has always had two core components - First: a union between a man and a woman and Second: a union of two people...

Why is it okay to arbitrarily change one of the core components but not the other? What's the logic?

 

[volinbham]

It is my belief that every American citizen be given the right to marry any other American citizen of their own choosing. For too long in this country, marriage has been misused and mishandled by the government. At this point and time the only way to reform it and return marriage to a place where it can be respected again is with government’s harsh intervention. It is my belief that too many individuals have been allowed into marriages uninformed of what awaits them. Because of this, I support the creation of a National Marriage Counseling Department (NMCD) which will oversee the counseling of citizens before they are issued their marriage licenses.

I call on congress to actively pursue a law that will ensure that couples of any race, gender, religion, origin or sexual orientation that are both U.S. citizens over the age of twenty-one that complete a forty hour course given by a NMCD official be recognized as fully and officially married under United States law and be afforded all rights as such.

As it is law to obtain a license to be married, I call on congress to make individuals require a license to be officially divorced. This would include an additional sixty hour class given by a NMCD official and the judgment of a United States judge. Anyone who is seeking to marry for a second or more time shall wait for a period of no less than three years from the date they obtain their divorce license and must retain copies of each marriage and divorce license awarded by the NMCD.

Both marriage and divorce licenses shall cost the individual citizen no less than two-hundred U.S. dollars. These collected funds shall be used only by the NMCD for materials related to the teaching and counseling of the American citizens.

How's that for a "different" idea.

Flame away.

You left out the mandatory "reprogramming" to be conducted by the NMCD :shades:

 

[OWB]

I just don't think that it's realistic that 3 or more people will want to marry each other minus your closet polygamists. I'm sure that there are a few who would disagree, but not enough to cause a stir.

But on the other hand if 3 people want to get married, who cares? Does that really affect your daily routine?

All in all, a definition is just that. Why couldn't one part be redefined and the other left alone?

 

[volinbham]

I just don't think that it's realistic that 3 or more people will want to marry each other minus your closet polygamists. I'm sure that there are a few who would disagree, but not enough to cause a stir.

But on the other hand if 3 people want to get married, who cares? Does that really affect your daily routine?

Just wanted to see where your thinking's at. eace2: None of it really affects my day but I do think it's inconsistent to demand a change in one of the core tenets of marriage but thinking changing the other is ridiculous.

It's really not a big issue to me at all and I definitely don't think it's worth even debating a constitutional amendment. I simply think at some point there has to be some ability for social institutions to to be maintained if that's the will of the people. As for all the other things (power of attorney, visitation, wills, etc.) I believe civil unions would be sufficient and I'm all for them.

 

[OrangeSquare]

You left out the mandatory "reprogramming" to be conducted by the NMCD :shades:

No Reprograming. Just basic classes in psychology, socialogy, and relationship behaviors. :dance2:

 

[CSpindizzy]

Seriously (for argument's sake) if the definition of marriage has always had two core components - First: a union between a man and a woman and Second: a union of two people...

Why is it okay to arbitrarily change one of the core components but not the other? What's the logic?

Don't forget the logic within the past few decades that made interracial marriages illegal as well.....I had to toss that in there.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I just think a bunch of adulterers, philanderers, and repeatedly married people are deciding marriage needs defending from 'evil'. If marriage needs defending let's ban divorce. Let's punish adulterers. Let us be like that MO town that bans unwed couples from living there.

 

[volinbham]

Don't forget the logic within the past few decades that made interracial marriages illegal as well.....I had to toss that in there.

Yet, laws against interracial marriage did violate the two basic tenets of the institution of marriage thus these laws were wrong. The tenets say nothing about the race of the partners.

Gay marriage changes one of the two basic tenets of the institution of marriage. Therefore, I don't see laws against gay marriage as wrong in the way that laws against interracial marriage are.

 

[CSpindizzy]

My point was that society uses arguments in a period to defend something. Marriage has varied from culture to culture. Even in Judeo thinking marriage of one man with several wives existed. Where is the argument with the Bible in regard to that? Multiple wives and concubines is Biblical. But many religious people continue to use the argument of only one man and one woman. What defines this institution of marriage I keep hearing of? Since we all comes from many backgrounds and even pre-Christian pagan traditions, who can define this? And why is it ok to allow marriage to be butchered by adulterers and other types but we are etching no gays into our Constitution? If you are going to argue the sanctity of marriage, address ALL of the issues with marriage. Don't single out a group within society and limit their actions in the Constitution.

 

[vader]

Seriously (for argument's sake) if the definition of marriage has always had two core components - First: a union between a man and a woman and Second: a union of two people...

Why is it okay to arbitrarily change one of the core components but not the other? What's the logic?

The definition of a marriage has not always been the union of two people. There are many example of polygamy in history and the bible.

 

[vader]

Yet, laws against interracial marriage did violate the two basic tenets of the institution of marriage thus these laws were wrong. The tenets say nothing about the race of the partners.

Gay marriage changes one of the two basic tenets of the institution of marriage. Therefore, I don't see laws against gay marriage as wrong in the way that laws against interracial marriage are.

Where are you getting these basic tenants of marriage? Where are they chipped in stone?

 

[volinbham]

This is how marriage has been conceived in this country (what we are talking about) since its founding.