Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[Calliander]

And, as an afterthought, I have something to say regarding the whole "definition" thing.

Just add another friggin' definition to the word. Most words have more than one meaning and are preceded by numbers and when they're used.

If you have a problem with another number being added to the definition, you're crazy.

And fuck the majority. If I kill enough of them with my guns to make it 49%, does that change how you feel? Hehe.

[Gohron]

And fuck the majority. If I kill enough of them with my guns to make it 49%, does that change how you feel? Hehe.

That's a really good idea

[sleeve]

Anyone know how [the Defense of Marriage
Act] has fared in the courts?

It hasn't yet been challenged, but it is almost certainly a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Reform power of attorney law.

It has nothing to do with power of attorney, but with property rights.

Beyond that, the guy doesn't deal with the best reason not to redefine gay marriage: "51%+ of Americans don't want to."

The Constitution does not operate by majority rule.

[Frogacuda]

A constitutional civil libertarian government like ours operates on the principle of minority rights, not majority rule. It's about keeping the majority in check. Majority rule is the law of the mob. It needs no constitution.

[Captain Vegetable]

It's funny how greatly Judiasm and Christianity differ on this attitude. Under jewish interpretation of law, it is not a sin for non-jews to commit such acts. The law of the Torah is the blessing and burden of the Jewish people, and only the jewish people. God is not pleased by having those who have rejected him forced to go through the motions.

As for my personal philosophy, I think it is a mistake to regard the laws of this country as a moral code, and it is an abuse of legislature to inject laws serving no greater purpose than morality. The purpose of secular law is to promote order. It's to create an equitable, stable, and orderly society. They sometimes overlap, and some people get them confused, but it's an important line to be draw. There are many things which are almost indisputable amoral, but which aren't illegal, because they're private matters.

I've said it before and I think it bears repeating here: To beleive in freedom, limited or otherwise, is to make the concession that people should be allowed to do certain things that they ought not to do. It's inescapable. In this constitutional civil libertarian government it is not the place of law to make people do what they ought to do, but rather to protect others from being hurt by them.

I beleive it's wrong to cheat on your girlfreind, but that doesn't mean that I think it ought to be ilegal. You might beleive that everybody ought to go to church on Sunday, but I somehow think (or hope) that you wouldn't see a law requiring such as appropriate. It's because law and morality occupy distinct domains that only partially overlap. It's important not to lose sight of this.

Dude, I can find myself agreeing with you 100%, however, if some genious politician gets the smart idea to put something like this into law (which they have), then we are all obligated to elect our officials accordingly based on this, and other issues.

I didn't push for someone to bring this up and make a big legal stink out of it, but now that the issue has already been made, I've no choice but to be true to myself through my vote.

And if the majority rules over right, fair and just then those laws should never have been overturned.

Yes they should have, because the majority changed their minds.

A constitutional civil libertarian government like ours operates on the principle of minority rights, not majority rule. It's about keeping the majority in check. Majority rule is the law of the mob. It needs no constitution.

This simply is not true. Historically, the minorities have rights because the majority gives them the rights.

[bbobb]

Yes they should have, because the majority changed their minds.

Not untill after the laws were overturned. I seriously doubt the majority would have changed their minds if not.

[Frogacuda]

This simply is not true. Historically, the minorities have rights because the majority gives them the rights.

You have a pretty fucked up notion of history then. Most of the civil rights in this country come by way of the constitution and the interpretation therof by the judicial branch. It's not like the white male population all voted to allow blacks or women to vote.

The constitution was written to protect people from the majority. I don't know how it's possible to read it and not grasp that intent. It's a rights-based legal system. Our laws are designed to allow people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They rarely delve into issues of strictly personal morality (and when they are, I beleive they are in error), because they're about protecting others, not legislating morality.

Dude, I can find myself agreeing with you 100%, however, if some genious politician gets the smart idea to put something like this into law (which they have), then we are all obligated to elect our officials accordingly based on this, and other issues.

I didn't push for someone to bring this up and make a big legal stink out of it, but now that the issue has already been made, I've no choice but to be true to myself through my vote.

You're not working within the frame-work of the political philosophy of our government. You aren't grasping the seperation of church and state thing. You want an incidentally religious government, as opposed to an intitutionally religious government, but both are unconstitutional.

This government is rights-based. It's limited. The reason we call it a free country is because we try whenever possible to allow people to live as they see fit, so long as it doesn't harm others. Everything from freedom of press to copyright law is designed to protect the rights of people.

God doesn't enter into the picture. My obligation in government is to society. God can rule His kingdom as He sees fit. As a minister, it is your place to persuade people to find a relationship with God, not to spite them for following a different path.

Again, old testament tradition, from which the Christian stance against homosexuality is drawn, is very clear that the laws are for God's chosen. They are not laws of the society at large. When the non-jews sin, God enacts his own retribution; He never asks the Jews to do it for him. Leviticus is a set of laws to govern a small jewish tribe, not a nation. Jewish tradition, while it preaches isolationism, also teaches that one should be respectful to the society at large.

[Damian79]

You're not working within the frame-work of the political philosophy of our government. You aren't grasping the seperation of church and state thing. You want an incidentally religious government, as opposed to an intitutionally religious government, but both are unconstitutional.

That may change considering the efforts that christians are trying to change government.

Again, old testament tradition, from which the Christian stance against homosexuality is drawn, is very clear that the laws are for God's chosen. They are not laws of the society at large. When the non-jews sin, God enacts his own retribution; He never asks the Jews to do it for him. Leviticus is a set of laws to govern a small jewish tribe, not a nation. Jewish tradition, while it preaches isolationism, also teaches that one should be respectful to the society at large.

So do what the Christians believe. Traditionally, it is the king's responsibility to enact God's will. The problem comes from democracy(), since people vote for their leaders, the blame also applies to them.

[Captain Vegetable]

Again, old testament tradition, from which the Christian stance against homosexuality is drawn, [...]

Actually, it's in the New Testament, smarty.

The most extensive reference to homosexuality in the Bible is located in the New Testament -- Romans, to be exact -- wherein it is included among the listed forms of unrighteousness.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
NKJV Rom 1:18-31

But this is a particular of my faith, and it doesn't apply to the debate at hand.

[...] is very clear that the laws are for God's chosen. They are not laws of the society at large. When the non-jews sin, God enacts his own retribution; He never asks the Jews to do it for him. Leviticus is a set of laws to govern a small jewish tribe, not a nation. Jewish tradition, while it preaches isolationism, also teaches that one should be respectful to the society at large.

Certainly, this could be argued, however, I'll concede for a moment and align myself with your particular way of thinking.

The law does, in fact, only apply to the chosen of God. It is mentioned in the New Testament that those in the body of Christ are not to judge those outside of the body of Christ. Homosexuals included.

However, does this mean that it is right and just, according to God, for me to vote in favor of such behavior, knowing full well that it is a degree of unrighteousness? Would you have me betray my faith in order to appease the public?

I'll tell you what, man. I have no problem letting those "on the outside" decide their own fate. But so long as that fate involves me, I'm going to vote in accordance with my faith and my concience. The outcome, really, is inconsequential.

You're not working within the frame-work of the political philosophy of our government.

Yes, I most certainly am.

You aren't grasping the seperation of church and state thing. You want an incidentally religious government, as opposed to an intitutionally religious government, but both are unconstitutional.

No, actually, I never made a comment on "what kind of government I want," simply the way in which I will cast my vote, and how my vote is, most certainly, in accordance with the political philosophies of our government, no matter how much you might disagree.

God doesn't enter into the picture.

He does if I allow Him to through my vote.

My obligation in government is to society. God can rule His kingdom as He sees fit. As a minister, it is your place to persuade people to find a relationship with God, not to spite them for following a different path.

My obligation, under any given circumstance, is to Jesus Christ. I am confident in my God and His words, and I'm certain that He knows how to run society much better than we ever could. As such, to glorify Him, and to honor His instruction, I will do as He says. This means voting against homosexual marriages.

I am not spiting anyone. I am not voting in favor of homosexuals not because "I hate fags," but because if I did, it would offend my concience and my God. It is a singularly internal affair.

Veggie: I'm curious why you care whether *the state* permits gays to marry. Do your Christian beliefs require you to object to the union of two gay Sikhs or atheists when their union occurs entirely outside the sphere of your church?

Because I am a member of *the state*, and as long as I am, I feel it my duity to vote in a manner that will not betray myself, my faith, or my God.

Dude, if homosexuals win this thing, good for them. But I'll not be a party to it. Read my responce to Frog for more insight into my reasoning.

[burgundy]

This simply is not true. Historically, the minorities have rights because the majority gives them the rights.

You are simply wrong. The Bill of Rights is about protecting individuals from the whim of the majoritarian legislature.

I don't feel the need to expound because Frog already has but I'll just say that our Founding Fathers were just as concerned about the tyranny of democracy as they were about tyranny of monarchy. If not more so.