Senate voting on Amendment to ban Gay Marriage

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:52 am

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048989

OK, I am hoping I am not opening a can of worms here, as this is not a topic I have seen discussed in my travels through the Garden. But what is everyone's take on the hopes to have a Constitutional ban on gay marriages?

I totally do NOT agree with this at all. I feel a marriage should be a union between two people who love each other, and want to commit to each other for the rest of thier lives.

I believe in the separation of Church and State, and do not feel certain interpretations of the bible have a place in this argument. As not all people are Christian, or follow the teaching of the Bible..it has no place in policy making.

For goodness sake, not all gays or lesbians are perverts or immoral. And there are perverts and immoral people among straights also!!

Child molesters? A greater percentage of pedophiles are straight men.

Gay agenda? The only agenda is to have the same legal rights and benefits as any married couple. Equal Rights are NOT Special Rights!!!!!

There is an older couple living down the street from me..two men. They have been together for 35 years!! Right now, one of them has terminal cancer. When he passes on, his partner has no legal rights as surviving partner...except for what has already been laid out in the will and Health Care Proxy of his partner.

Really sad.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:36 am

i've posted at great length about the 'issue' of gay marriage previously here on forumgarden. i've never heard an argument that accurately contradicts my own.

the constitution, which of all documents in the united states is most certainly deserving of reverence, is a document that codifies the limits on the powers of our government, and the broad scope of the freedoms the people explicitly hold. only rarely has the constitution been used to tighten or restrict personal freedoms - in the main, it has been used to codify expansion of freedoms.

a constitutional ban on gay marriage should be anathema to all right-thinking americans.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:59 am

There has only been one attempt to modify the Constitution in order to tell people what they can't do...and that attempt didn't last very long.

This amendment proposal should be shot down in flames, and I'm dismayed that the vote was as close as it was. Restricting rights - particularly those rights whose exercise harms no one - is an extremely bad precedent. Letting gays marry will have absolutely no effect on "traditional" marriage...people who are married now will be no less married if gays are allowed to marry.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:44 pm

I would hope that if they should ever pass this bigotted amendment that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional as it seems to me that it definately violates the seperation of church and state.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:46 pm

LilacDragon wrote: I would hope that if they should ever pass this bigotted amendment that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional as it seems to me that it definately violates the seperation of church and state.

actually, the constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. it only states that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:57 am

Erinna1112 wrote: There has only been one attempt to modify the Constitution in order to tell people what they can't do...and that attempt didn't last very long.

Just curious. Do you mean prohibition?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:47 am

LilacDragon wrote: I would hope that if they should ever pass this bigotted amendment that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional as it seems to me that it definately violates the seperation of church and state.That's just it, an amendment to the constitution is, by definition, constitutional.

I'm glad the vote failed. Now we don't have to go through the process of another amendment repealing that one. Remember alcohol prohibition? From the history class, I mean. :rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:51 am

Marie5656 wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048989

OK, I am hoping I am not opening a can of worms here, as this is not a topic I have seen discussed in my travels through the Garden. But what is everyone's take on the hopes to have a Constitutional ban on gay marriages?

I totally do NOT agree with this at all. I feel a marriage should be a union between two people who love each other, and want to commit to each other for the rest of thier lives.

I believe in the separation of Church and State, and do not feel certain interpretations of the bible have a place in this argument. As not all people are Christian, or follow the teaching of the Bible..it has no place in policy making.

For goodness sake, not all gays or lesbians are perverts or immoral. And there are perverts and immoral people among straights also!!

Child molesters? A greater percentage of pedophiles are straight men.

Gay agenda? The only agenda is to have the same legal rights and benefits as any married couple. Equal Rights are NOT Special Rights!!!!!

There is an older couple living down the street from me..two men. They have been together for 35 years!! Right now, one of them has terminal cancer. When he passes on, his partner has no legal rights as surviving partner...except for what has already been laid out in the will and Health Care Proxy of his partner.

Really sad.

Arnold & I went round & round earlier about marriage. The thread's around here somewhere. I think the gov't should stop licensing marriages altogether. People that want to be married can go to a church for the ceremony. The gov't need not be involved at all.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:54 am

What it boils down to is this - GW and his buddies are having a hard time and they need someone to love them again. The largest group that they can make happy (and maybe get their vote at election time ) is the religious bunch. So they go after something that they know they can't win but that their religious friends will like. So they go after gays.

Don't we have more important matters in this country to attend to? The time wasted could have been better spent trying to figure out how to do a dozen different things. But that would not have helped the numbers.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:25 am

Diuretic wrote: Good point. But surely a marriage in a secular ceremony is as valid as a marriage in a religious ceremony? Or am I stating the bleedin' obvious? Is all this (LD has summed it up very clearly in terms of its politics) really a squabble over a word?

Right, Diuretic. Rick and I were married in a civil ceremony, by a Justice of the Peace. I do not feel we are any less married than those who have had a church ceremony!!

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:58 am

Well, sadly, Pinky, there are too many conservatives out there who feel that being gay is somehow wrong, or against nature.

My niece is gay, and is happy in her relationship...that is all that matters. They went into Vermont for a civil union a few years back.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:33 am

LilacDragon wrote: What it boils down to is this - GW and his buddies are having a hard time and they need someone to love them again. The largest group that they can make happy (and maybe get their vote at election time ) is the religious bunch. So they go after something that they know they can't win but that their religious friends will like. So they go after gays.

Don't we have more important matters in this country to attend to? The time wasted could have been better spent trying to figure out how to do a dozen different things. But that would not have helped the numbers.

I agree completely.

And I'm so pleased that we have such socially liberal people here in the Garden. Truly, does *anyone* get hurt if a lesbian marries another lesbian?

Aren't there bigger fish to fry in the world?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:04 pm

Accountable wrote: That's just it, an amendment to the constitution is, by definition, constitutional.

I'm glad the vote failed. Now we don't have to go through the process of another amendment repealing that one. Remember alcohol prohibition? From the history class, I mean. :rolleyes:

i think it's worth noting a few things.

this vote - had it gone past the vote to debate that is - would have only started the amendment process. the amendment would then have been submitted to each of the fifty states to ratify or reject - as each of these united states is in effect a sovereign nation of its own. that may or may not have then been a lengthy process. keep in mind that the original bill of rights as submitted to the states in 1789 had twelve amendments, not ten. the 'original' second amendment - regarding congressional compensation - was not ratified until 1992!

more than 10,000 amendments to the constitution have been introduced in congress since 1789. each year from 100 to 200 amendments are offered. obviously, few ever make it even to a vote to merely debate. for one to make it beyond debate and into the actual amendment process, requires a full two-thirds majority of both the house and the senate. then, once submitted to the states, it is requires that three-fourths of the states ratify, before the amendment actually becomes law.

the process is designed to be very difficult, to prevent ill-concieved 'hot' issues from becoming part of the supreme law of the land.

mominiowa · Post by **mominiowa** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:24 pm

Marie5656 wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048989

OK, I am hoping I am not opening a can of worms here, as this is not a topic I have seen discussed in my travels through the Garden. But what is everyone's take on the hopes to have a Constitutional ban on gay marriages?

I totally do NOT agree with this at all. I feel a marriage should be a union between two people who love each other, and want to commit to each other for the rest of thier lives.

I believe in the separation of Church and State, and do not feel certain interpretations of the bible have a place in this argument. As not all people are Christian, or follow the teaching of the Bible..it has no place in policy making.

For goodness sake, not all gays or lesbians are perverts or immoral. And there are perverts and immoral people among straights also!!

Child molesters? A greater percentage of pedophiles are straight men.

Gay agenda? The only agenda is to have the same legal rights and benefits as any married couple. Equal Rights are NOT Special Rights!!!!!

There is an older couple living down the street from me..two men. They have been together for 35 years!! Right now, one of them has terminal cancer. When he passes on, his partner has no legal rights as surviving partner...except for what has already been laid out in the will and Health Care Proxy of his partner.

Really sad.

Marie - that was beautifully put!!:-4

As some of you know my brother who passed away in 1988 was a very proud gay man....I loved my brother's partner just as if he were my own brother...........My brother was a wonderful man and I miss him so very much....

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:37 pm

For a wholly different perspective, I do not agree with or condone gay marriage. It's just abhorrent to me.

Let the slamming begin.... :yh_blush

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:45 pm

BabyRider wrote: For a wholly different perspective, I do not agree with or condone gay marriage. It's just abhorrent to me.

Let the slamming begin.... :yh_blush

i don't agree with some body modification, myself (oof!). but i'm not harmed by someone else doing it. nor am i harmed by two people of the same gender getting married.

i will quote myself, since i'm in love with my own words, and who better to back up my argument than me?

posted in august of 2004:

anastrophe wrote: no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.

it's certainly your privilege to find gay marriage abhorrent, absolutely. but i trust that as a right-thinking, freedom loving american, you would not support, condone, or accept the notion that people who are not harming others in the pursuit of their own happiness should be prevented from doing so...

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:49 pm

Does anyone else find the timing of this suspicious? It's just as the midterm election campaigns are starting to ramp up. I'm sensing a tail-wagging-dog distraction here...a smokescreen to keep the voters' minds off the real issues facing us. Lou Dobbs had a great commentary on it. I'll see if I can find the article.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:12 pm

Erinna1112 wrote: Does anyone else find the timing of this suspicious? It's just as the midterm election campaigns are starting to ramp up. I'm sensing a tail-wagging-dog distraction here...a smokescreen to keep the voters' minds off the real issues facing us. Lou Dobbs had a great commentary on it. I'll see if I can find the article.

That is exactly what it is. Just a way to get the religious people to vote for GW's buddies.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:34 pm

And should aids be ignored?

How can those of you that say homosexuality has no effect on other human beings, when aids run rampant in the lifestyles of these people?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:40 pm

K.Snyder wrote: And should aids be ignored?

How can those of you that say homosexuality has no effect on other human beings, when aids run rampant in the lifestyles of these people?
I'll just be sitting here waiting for the "if it's kept among themselves, us heterosexuals won't need concern ourselves with it."

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:42 pm

K.Snyder wrote: And should aids be ignored?

How can those of you that say homosexuality has no effect on other human beings, when aids run rampant in the lifestyles of these people?

So only gay people have AIDS? How odd. I could swear that plenty of heterosexuals and drug users had it too? And I am pretty sure that gay sex wasn't the start of the disease either.

No, who my neighbor sleeps with doesn't effect me in any way. No, if my gay neighbors get married it doesn't effect me in any way.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:54 pm

anastrophe wrote: i will quote myself, since i'm in love with my own words, and who better to back up my argument than me?

Am I the only one that just loves the things Paul says?

I think I have a *word crush* on you:-4

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:34 am

K.Snyder wrote: And should aids be ignored?

How can those of you that say homosexuality has no effect on other human beings, when aids run rampant in the lifestyles of these people?

Actually it was the perception and prejudice about aids being a "gay" plague and "gay" cancer and was the result of gay sexual practices and a judgement from god that delayed the realisation that aids could be transferred through blood transfusions and hetoersexual practices as well. I think it was the wife of Paul Michael Glaserr-(starsky or Hutch i forget which one he played) who was the first non gay public figure that died as the result of a contaminated blood transfusion and who's death led the first publicity of the fact that aids was not just as a result of being gay. Many others died as a result of contaminated blood transfusions as a result of such blind prejudice. World wide it is mainly heterosexuals who have aids.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:20 am

Pinky wrote: But what about people that don't go to church? Athiests, for example. It's a good idea, but one that would leave many people up the river without a paddle!Break out of the box. I mean that marriage is only a ceremony. Couples that simply live together (male/female couples, that is) can claim common-law marriage. They don't have a license, yet they are married.

So since you don't need a license, why have one at all?

I mean to delete marriage as a legal definition and leave it as a social-cultural construct. Allow an adult of sound mind to name whomever he chooses to act as "next-of-kin" - make decisions, inherit the estate, whatever. This would put us all on the same level even more than allowing legal homosexual marriage will.

Of course, even the homosexual political activists don't want this to happen. They want marriage! They want to force society to elevate their status. That's the real goal. If it weren't, they would have accepted civil ceremonies immediately.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:39 am

I'm happy:) to say that my state, the state of Massachusetts, is the *only* state in the U.S. that has legalized gay marriage.

I'm proud to be a resident of such a progressive state!

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:49 am

K.Snyder wrote: And should aids be ignored?

How can those of you that say homosexuality has no effect on other human beings, when aids run rampant in the lifestyles of these people?

If *only* gays got AIDS, then I would agree. But a couple of points here...AIDS was initially prevalent among gay MEN..not lesbians. Also, as someone has already mentioned, there is the spread among IV drug users, and recipients of tainted blood during transfusions.

Also, being gay alone is not automatically an opening for AIDS. It was among those who practiced unsafe, promiscuous sex...which is how many heterosexual people have also gotten it.

Sorry, much as I dislike disagreeing with people I like, I have to disagree.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:26 pm

LilacDragon wrote: So only gay people have AIDS? How odd. I could swear that plenty of heterosexuals and drug users had it too? And I am pretty sure that gay sex wasn't the start of the disease either.

No, who my neighbor sleeps with doesn't effect me in any way. No, if my gay neighbors get married it doesn't effect me in any way.

Nor do I care really. I know that aids is a factor in the lyfstyles of gay people, but isnt it more common in homosexuality as opposed to other ways?

Whatever the fact, I am for whatever slows down the spread of HIV, if that means gays being allowed to marry, so be it. If it helps to stop the spread of aids by banning same sex marriage, Im all for it.

I just think of the brave, unselfish medics(to name a few) who make an attempt to save the life of a fellow human being, only to find out later that the blood of the person he is trying to save is HIV positive. I know its not just in the lifstyles of homosexuals, but that is the issue we are discussing here, not aids in general.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:30 pm

Marie5656 wrote: ..not lesbians.

As much as I like to disagree, I have to say, that I cannot disagree with this.

Infact, I rather would enjoy it on a personal level. :sneaky:

That is to say if the women arnt big, burly, and could kick my @$$.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:31 pm

K.Snyder wrote: I just think of the brave, unselfish medics(to name a few) who make an attempt to save the life of a fellow human being, only to find out later that the blood of the person he is trying to save is HIV positive.

Good point K, gay lifestyles do effect others, don't they?:-2

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:59 pm

Pinky wrote: Hold on...anyone who sleeps around or sleeps with anybody at all without using protection is at risk of becoming HIV positive.

Yeah, but doesnt one have to be HIV positive to infect another?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:13 pm

Pinky wrote:

It's almost like you're saying that a gay person stands more chance of being HIV positive than a straight person!

Thats my assumption....yes.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:24 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Thats my assumption....yes.

your assumption is wrong. far more heterosexuals are infected with HIV than homosexuals. many orders of magnitude more. HIV originated in Africa sometime between the late 1940's and the early 1950's. Researchers found HIV in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Congo.

so no, it's not a gay disease. it didn't originate with gays, and the majority of people infected are not gay.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:46 pm

I did a little looking before answering just to make sure what I thought I knew to be truth, was actually right and not just my blonde brain interpreting information in some cockeyed way.

In Africa, the number of WOMEN with Aids outnumbers men until the age of 33. Then, the number of men seems to increase. This completely blows K's theory out of the water as in "civilized" countries there doesn't seem to be any instances of AIDS being transmitted between lesbians.

Here is a link to some interesting HIV/AIDS statistics (broken down so that even a blonde can figure it out

) http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm

It is all pretty irrelevant so far as Gay Marriage is concerned. I have some gay friends and I have never heard one of them say that they would like to be able to marry to avoid HIV/AIDS. They want to build a life with their significant other and know that if something happens to one or the other of them, they are protected UNDER THE LAW just like everyone else.

They are not asking for "special" priveledges. They just want to be treated fairly.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:01 pm

Pinky wrote: Thank you Anastrophe! That's what I've been trying to get K to think about.

Well said!:yh_worshp

All you had to do was present the facts to me, as Anostrophe did, and the facts are well noted.

I suppose the HIV issue is irrelevant, given that these facts are correct.

As for insight on my logic pertaining to this, I have heard of more cases of HIV, and aids in the gay community as opposed to anywhere else.