Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

Gays should be allowed to marry. Religion shouldn't care. A law isn't going to change Gods mind, so you don't have anything personal to worry about.

This isn't going to happen when you die
"Hey gods, whats the shizzie?" "Nothing much, we let gays in today." "What?" "yeah, the US made some crazy law about letting gays get married, so I thought Id change my mind about them. Isnt that great?" "@_@"

People should be allowed to owns guns, any gun they want for that matter. Hell let them have a tank. Why? Because last time I checked, killing people and destroying property was still against the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Cool. Sleeveboy is against gun control. At least he's right on one issue.

---

I am against gun control.

I have said in previous posts that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a constitutional right to bear arms, which is true from the standpoint of existing constitutional law and precedent. But that does not change my stance on the issue.

Is that what you meant?

Look this move is a political move and that's it. There is no way in the hell amenment will pass. Stop having a hissy fit.

Its a move that is trying to attack the centrist approach of the Democratic Party. The majority of America is against gay marriage(Massachusets - a liberal state, has a majority of people against it at the moment). Now if the Democratic supports this policy or the moderate policy of favoring civil union(which is the rational thing to do), they may alienate the radical left. Seriously, all Bush is doing is capitalizing on the uproar caused by what they are doing in California.

And if Bush pushes hard for this amendment, he'll alienate a nonsignificant number of gay Republicans, moderates, and young people. Support for the amendment is only in the 30% range for the under-30 crowd.

Andrew Sullivan, the prominent gay conservative pundit, is furious over this issue, and he's always been one of the most vociferous Bush supporters out there. If Bush loses the support of gays and Jews over this, it will cost him the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

And if Bush pushes hard for this amendment, he'll alienate a nonsignificant number of gay Republicans, moderates, and young people. Support for the amendment is only in the 30% range for the under-30 crowd.

Andrew Sullivan, the prominent gay conservative pundit, is furious over this issue, and he's always been one of the most vociferous Bush supporters out there. If Bush loses the support of gays and Jews over this, it will cost him the election.

---

First off, there is no way the amendment will be passed, even if he actually tries to push it. At least five Republican Senators came out against the amendment. There is not enough support in his party to pass it, and it would be foolish to pursue the agenda. Its just an appeal to the mass media and the moderates in the swing states.

And support for amendent != support against gay marriage, I doubt the Republicans were counting on the gay community and Jewish to suddenly brake ranks and join the Republicans, the few Gay Republicans and Jewish Republicans there would hardly be a loss, if it could divide the Democratic Party(which I don't think will happen, its just a potential landmine).

Edit: Spelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigana

(Massachusets - a liberal state, has a majority of people against it at the moment).

---

Massachustets is about 6% behind the national average on the issue, actually. You overestimate how liberal they are compared to other states on this issue.

Also the majority of americans do NOT support a constitutional amendment to this effect.

Quote:

---

Now if the Democratic supports this policy or the moderate policy of favoring civil union(which is the rational thing to do), they may alienate the radical left.

---

Except most democrats already do. The Defense of Marriage Act was supprted by Clinton, Gephardt, etc. Kerry supports civil unions, too. Hell, Bush said he supports civil unions in his speech too.

Quote:

---

Seriously, all Bush is doing is capitalizing on the uproar caused by what they are doing in California.

---

And Massechusetts, which by the way is still going into effect, and has NOT been overturned (I checked).


On the civil union matter, I think it's an utterly stupid compromise, and I can't beleive that changing the word actually solves the problem for anyone. It's a semantics issue. If there's no legal distinction beyond name, then what's the point? And if there is a legal distinction that's a problem.

I just don't understand the logic. "I think gays are disgusting and shouldn't be able to get married." "Well, what if we called it getting narried?" "Narried, you say? Well that solves my problem..." How fucking petty. Who cares?

This is also a token appeal to the religous right who don't think he is hard enough on those gays(as scary as that it is).

Edit: Post Fubared

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigana

And support for amendent != support against gay marriage,

---

The FMA would not only outlaw gay marriage, but it would permanently alter the Constitution in such a way that gays would be unable to claim the rights incident to marriage, ever.

Quote:

---

I doubt the Republicans were counting on the gay community and Jewish to suddenly brake ranks and join the Republicans, the few Gay Republicans and Jewish Republicans there would hardly be a loss, if it could divide the Democratic Party(which I don't think will happen, its just a potential landmine).

---

Gays and Jews have money, and they vote. In a close election you need as much of both as you can muster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Except most democrats already do. The Defense of Marriage Act was supprted by Clinton, Gephardt, etc. Kerry supports civil unions, too. Hell, Bush said he supports civil unions in his speech too.

---

Obviously, my whole point is that the Republicans trying to make civil unions an unacceptable choice for the gay community. Trying to create a divide in the Democratic party, while before civil unions might have been acceptable, but with the progess in San Francisco, they might side with a different candidate that supports marriage licenses instead of gay issues. In addition, it is an appeal to the religous right, which are getting on Bush for not being harder on social issues. Of course this action is quite risky and might blow up in his face. All I'm saying is that there is no chance that the amendment is going to happen, so stop acting like its the end of the world.

And on the civil union thingie, it justs a compromise that provides basic rights to gay couple, but is totally secular. Unlike marriage, which still has religous overtones to the majority of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tigana

And on the civil union thingie, it justs a compromise that provides basic rights to gay couple, but is totally secular. Unlike marriage, which still has religous overtones to the majority of the country.

---

Then it's time to remove state sanctioned marriage. I'm a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, so if gays can't be married because it's religious, but can have civil unions, then EVERYONE should be required to have civil unions, and marriages can be their own seperate religious thing.