People have been posting as I was writing this, but that’s cool. It means the debate is well underway and still going.
And so, with no further ado…
Originally posted by karajorma
Of course scientifically proven facts probably mean nothing to a creationist 
Truer words were never spoken.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Why do I want this amendment? Because everyday I see the destruction of my society, I see the destruction of all that is good in this world. Every time I see two homosexuals kiss or nuzzle, I feel so sick to my stomach that If I don't leave immediately, I'll vomit. That is the ONLY time in my life I have ever felt that way. I've seen my share of disgusting things and acts, but nothing compares to two homosexuals going at it. (Mangled dead bodies don't even come close.)
So you didn’t feel at least sick to your stomach when religious fanatics hijacked a few airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? I was
less than a half-hour’s drive away from the World Trade Center on September 11. I watched
live on TV as the second plane flew into the South Tower. You’re trying to tell me that seeing two guys going at it evinces a more disgusted and/or horrified reaction from you than seeing 3,000 of
our own countrymen murdered live on television?
What kind of monster are you?
I’ll admit, the first time I saw two guys holding hands, I was a little perturbed. That was twelve years ago. I’ve seen gays hold hands and even kiss each other
more times since then, and you know what?
You get used to it.Beowulf, maybe what we need to do with you is pull a Clockwork Orange on you: to get you over your homophobia, we’ll tie you to a chair, wire your eyes open and show you movies of two guys going at it for the next two years. I GUARANTEE you, you’ll get used to it.
And who knows? You might even grow to like it enough to indulge in it yourself. Unlikely, but you never know.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Homosexuality is wrong. From anyway you look at it. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but I will not have the sanctity of marriage eroded so that homosexuals can get a tax benefit. Marriage like most things, is what you make of it. Let's not degrade it to the level of mere carnal lust. Marriage is meant to create a stable environment to raise children. (What's half the reason the world is going to hell? So many divorces and f***ed up families.)
The trick here is not to focus on homosexuality, it is to focus on marriage.
You refuse to recognize that the concept of marriage
has evolved since this country was founded. It has NOT remained constant since the beginning of civilization.
Centuries ago, a woman had to swear an oath of loyalty to her husband because she was regarded as his property. Would you claim that today a wife is the property of her husband?
Back in Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution: "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians ... within the United States ... is forever prohibited." You got that? Southern conservatives tried to pass a constitutional amendment barring interracial marriage, claiming that interracial marriage was immoral and would threaten the sanctity of marriage. Obviously, it didn’t pass. Would you support that same amendment today?
NEW LEGAL ANALYSIS ALERT: Ok, peeps, remember how the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution has been mentioned that would require a state to fully recognize another state’s acceptance of gay marriage? It turns out that I found a gaping wide exception to this which
completely nullifies the necessity for the anti-gay marriage amendment.
I didn’t know about this until this morning (my legal expertise is in environmental law, not civil rights, remember) so any legal analysis (I think I said this, too) about claiming that a gay marriage recognized in one state would have to be recognized in all states is false.
It seems that marriage has NEVER been one of the "public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transferable from state to state. If that had been the case, we would never have had a struggle over interracial marriage. As soon as one Northern state legalized it, it would have been legal in every Southern state. (Civil divorce, ironically,
is such an institution. It is the result of a judicial proceeding. Civil marriage, in contrast, is a license. I know this myself because my parents weren’t married in a church, they were married at New York City Hall.) It has long been established law that the states
have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and Massachusetts' marriage licenses, to cite the current controversy, are even issued
on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that “activist courts” these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won't recognize such marriages and with the Defense of Marriage Act (a.k.a. DOMA, passed in 1996 and signed by president Clinton) backing that up the likelihood is minimal.
You got that, kids? Since the Full Faith and Credit clause has an exception that allows a state not to recognize another state’s marriage, the entire premise for the anti-gay marriage amendment BECOMES COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. Conservatives think that this amendment is needed because the FF&C clause would require gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts would inexorably spread to all the other 49 states. BUT IT DOESN’T REQUIRE THAT AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTION FOR MARRIAGE.
In light of that little tidbit of information, this proposed amendment looks like nothing more than a power grab to exclude gays from marriage wholesale BEFORE any gay marriages can occur. The problem is, they
already are occurring in San Francisco(granted, arguably illegally) and
will start occurring in Massachusetts in May (legally b/c the Mass State Supreme Court required it), less than three months away. It takes YEARS to ratify a federal constitutional amendment, so by the time this amendment gets ratified, hundreds of thousands of gay couples, if not more (3,200 gay couples have been married in San Francisco in just the last two weeks
alone), will already be married. If the amendment passes, it will take away a fundamental right to marry from hundreds of thousands of Americans who are ALREADY married in the eyes of San Francisco and Massachusetts. In over 200 years, Americans have always used the Constitution to GRANT rights, NOT take them away, with one glaring exception: Prohibition. Remember how well THAT turned out?
Peeps, this proposed amendment looks like nothing more than a classic Republican right-wing overreach. Once people start realizing (and some already have) that the gay couples getting married aren't bogeymen and will have
already fulfilled rights nullified by this amendment, everyone barring the most die-hard religionist will start having second thoughts, including true conservatives who don't support changing the Constitution on a whim, especially to remove a group's already enshrined right.
EDIT: Amendment Ratification Update: I just heard that Georgia(!) just yesterday couldn't muster enough votes in their state House of Representatives to get an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the books. There's an interview by former Rep. Bob Barr on MSNBC, found
here, a noteworthy conservative who actually DISFAVORS this anti-gay marriage amendment because he wants the states to decide for themselves. Now THAT'S a
real conservative.
Peeps, if a Southern Old Dixie state like Georgia is having problems with this anti-gay marriage amendment, it's not gonna pass. No way is this amendment gonna get 3/4 of the states' approval to ratify it, even if the US Congress approves it.
Thank God for Bush because he did the one thing the Democrats couldn't do for themselves: he unified the Democratic party.
I guess he really was a uniter, after all. *snicker*
:thepimp:
