election irony

[allroy1975]

I just wanted to point out that I love it when people tell me I'm closed minded because I don't agree with them.  I can see their point of view...I understand that you read this one book that says all this stuff and you eat it up hook, line and sinker.  I'm asking that you look outside that book...other things have happened in the last 2000 years...

I can see that it's one set of ideas that doesn't affect you.  You're not gay (at least your book says you can't be, so you pretend you're not) so what do you care?

Can anyone tell me why same sex marriages should be illegle?

and I swear if you tell me it will demoralise our country...I insist that you quit this stupid crusade and go on one against MTV.

Allroy

[Dexter]

Can anyone tell me why same sex marriages should be illegle?

Allroy

I can tell you they shouldn't be illegal. What we're moving towards in europe more and more is the idea of a civil union between two gays thats legally binding and gives both people the same benefits and protection as a hetrosexual marriage. They're not seen to be married in the eyes of God, but as they're both sinners   anyway (crap of course), I wouldn't imagine this matters enough to put many off the idea.

I can't see anything wrong with this. There are people being left homeless when their partners die because they have no claim by law on their home, which they would have if they had been allowed to marry their partner. It's a disgrace. A civil union would prevent this discrimination from happening.

Dexter

[patrickl]

Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.

So, how about 5 men and 4 women?

Any reason why they should not all be allowed to marry one another?

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

[TA Pilot]

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

You arent answering the question.

if you want to change the (long-accepted) definition of marraige (against the will of the vast majority of the people) to include 2 people of the same gender, what argument is there to exclude a marriage of numerous people of the same and different gender?

You aren't answering the question because you find it annyoying, you arent answering it because you dont like where the answer leads.  

[Grasshopper]

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

You arent answering the question.

if you want to change the (long-accepted) definition of marraige (against the will of the vast majority of the people) to include 2 people of the same gender, what argument is there to exclude a marriage of numerous people of the same and different gender?

You aren't answering the question because you find it annyoying, you arent answering it because you dont like where the answer leads.  

TA, presumably you are aware that Mormon and Muslim men have traditionally been allowed to have more than one wife?

[GGKoul]

TA, the reason groups of people can't marry one person because a person is married to 1 spouse.  Not a group of spouses.

The issue is why a person can't marry a same sex spouse.  


Also, how's your BYOAC project coming along?  Feel free to email me directly should have has any questions.

Be sure to post updates in the Project Announcements section.

[Crazy Cooter]

"Only that it devalues what straight people call marriage.

Look, if you work hard for 7 years and finally are awarded your PhD, how would you feel if I ordered my PhD online and got it instantly?  Does it really have no effect on you or the value of your PhD? "

Has divorce devalued what straight people call marriage?
If the PhD is marriage, what are you comparing the 7 years to?  I'm not seeing the parallelism.

[shmokes]

TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever

And yet, its the theory upon which our govenrment is based.  Inalienable rights, endowed by the creator.



But the state, obviously, can create rights.

No.  The state gets its power from us, where we cede some of our rights to it.  It cannot give to us what we did not already have.



Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps...  but then, no one's privelege is being denied.  Gays still have the ability to marry.  



The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

People have always been limited as to whom they can be married.  These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage.  Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?

Why?



Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate....

Psst....   I dont hate gays.
But then, liberals charatcerize anyone that disagrees with them as a 'hater', so I guess I'l ignore the insinuation - its a genetic trait with you guys, and you can't help it.

TA, Why don't you try to have an honest debate.  In each of the lines you responded to you completely left out, and did not respond to, the supporting arguments that accompanied those lines in my post.

[GGKoul]

No please no more debate.  I thought the title was Election Irony, not same sex marriage.

[DrewKaree]

No please no more debate.  I thought the title was Election Irony, not same sex marriage.

I thought this was about the state our President hails from and the difference between steers and ....the other one  

Here, just to add to the ignorance - according to MrC's "Purple America", this past election was split right down the middle, even in those states Bush "cleaned Kerry's clock" in.  The states that had the Gay Marriage proposals on the ballot - let me walk you through it now - 51% Bush, 48% Kerry, and the "against Gay Marriage" thing passed by, on average, 70%.  So I guess some of those who were against Bush were also against Gay marriage.

I anxiously await the reply that explains how I'm wrong and that this was all just a Religious Jihad on America by the religious right-wing neocon wackjobs.  Will some Mother Jones subscriber explain it to me - and talk down to me, remember, I'm part of the idiot majority

[TA Pilot]

TA, presumably you are aware that Mormon and Muslim men have traditionally been allowed to have more than one wife?

Not in the United States.

If men can marry men, then why not 5 men and 6 women, all married to one another?

Again, it comes down to the fact that marriage is a creature of the state, and the people of the state have the right to define marriage as they choose.  They choose to define is as man+woman.

You disagree with that choice.  Fine.  
Your only recourse is to change peoples' minds.
Good luck with that.



TA, the reason groups of people can't marry one person because a person is married to 1 spouse.  Not a group of spouses.

Why cant a person have more than one spouse?
If you're going to change one basic definition of marriage -man + woman - then what argument is there agianst changing another basic defintion - men + women ?


"Also, how's your BYOAC project coming along?  Feel free to email me directly should have has any questions."

Clearly, you dont pay attention to the posts here.

[allroy1975]

How many states had same sex marriages on the ballot?

what?  11?  yep.  I see it now.  

So the catholic church didn't send out information on how voting for john kerry is a sin in all areas of the country?  I heard the government is actually considering taking away their "tax free" status because of how they behaved in the last election.  

Do you not beleive that there were a lot of people who are not happy with the current president who voted for him anyway because they're afraid that performing the sin of voting for someone else that they went ahead and voted for him?

BTW, Statements were issued to the news media as well as published in parish bullitins in St. Louis talking about how Kerry was a sin.

stupid majority.....you know...just cuz britney spears has a #1 record doesn't mean it's any good.  It verifies that the majority is stupid.

Allroy

[TA Pilot]

stupid majority.....you know...just cuz britney spears has a #1 record doesn't mean it's any good.  It verifies that the majority is stupid


Yes.
And Josn Kerry woud have won, had you called these people "stupid" about 10 million more times.

You guys really dont get it, do you?   Trying to pass yourself off as someones cultural and intellectual better is NOT going to win you elections.

But hey - keep it up.  It will simply be the doom of your party.

[shmokes]

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.  I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Arguing with you wouldn't be nearly so tedious if you would BOOKMARK THIS PAGE.  It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

[Dartful Dodger]

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.  I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Arguing with you wouldn't be nearly so tedious if you would BOOKMARK THIS PAGE.  It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

It's like arguing with the Bush haters.

That's some election irony.

[shmokes]

It's like arguing

Hardly.  It's more like talking to a wall.

with the Bush haters.

That's not even a complete sentence.  How am I supposed to respond to that.

That's some election iron

An election iron?  Is that supposed to get the wrinkles out of an election?

y

I don't speak spanish.

[TA Pilot]

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.

It is?

ALL of the arguments that apply to a male-male marriage apply to a 5 male+6 female marriage.

Why isnt anyone supporting the idea of making such a thing legal?



I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Indeed.
Do you suppose said slippery slope has something to do with the widespread opposition to gay marraige?  

Marriage has held the same definition for centirues.  The argument now is that it should be changed because consenting adults should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.  This argument applies not just to gay marriages but multiple marriages as well.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  



It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

Given much of the blather within many of those posts, I try to cull the chaff and respond to the wheat.  The full quotes are available on this page for citation, if someone thinks I have taken them out of context.

[shmokes]

Well....maybe they should be able to get married.  Maybe if polygamists didn't have such a nasty habit of forcing girls into marriages or marrying 13 year old girls they wouldn't have such a bad stigma.  Or maybe there are practical reasons to limit it such as the exponential complications of divorce and custody and inheritence, etc. that might be introduced.  Who knows?

Either way, that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about the fact that the state currently has a law that allows two adults to merge into a single legal unit so they can share things like health insurance coverage and child raising and so on, but that the state is drawing restrictions along religious lines to exclude gays.  Maybe people SHOULD be able to marry dogs.  But gays aren't dogs.  They're people.  Maybe I should be able to marry 1000 people at the same time.  But that's not what we're talking about.  It's possible for someone to say, "Yeah....it makes sense to extend (or rather cease withholding if you prefer) that right to gays," without saying, "There should be no limits on how the institution of marriage can be used."

That's what makes a slippery slope so useful TA (as you are clearly aware).  Instead of answering the question at hand you simply avoid it by asking a bunch of other barely related (if at all) questions.  The next time someone asks you why gays should not be allowed to marry, try actually answering the question.  Either you'll change your mind, or you'll develop some valid arguments.  Either would be an improvement over your current position.  Here are some answers that are not valid:

- Because they've never been allowed to get married.

- Because 70% of people say they shouldn't  (Remember...the world isn't flat -- the operative words in the question are "should not")

- Because I don't want to have to see it.

- Because god hates a [gay person] (Damned autocensor).

- Because what's next?  Pedophilia?  Bestiality?  Polygamy?  We've got to draw a line somewhere so why not arbitrarily draw it at gays (rather than at pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy)?

[saint]

I see nothing wrong with multiple adults getting married. It falls under the category of "What consenting adults do that doesn't hurt someone else is none of my business." In no way, shape, or form does it threaten my marriage or well being.

The reason no one is bringing it up is there (apparently) is no statistically significant group of people who wish those rights who are being denied them.

If such an issue did arise there would certainly be questions to answer (such as: do survivor benefits get split equally between all the spouses?) but I can't think of any show stoppers. It is likely that I would vote to approve such a measure.

--- saint

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.

It is?

ALL of the arguments that apply to a male-male marriage apply to a 5 male+6 female marriage.

Why isnt anyone supporting the idea of making such a thing legal?



I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Indeed.
Do you suppose said slippery slope has something to do with the widespread opposition to gay marraige?  

Marriage has held the same definition for centirues.  The argument now is that it should be changed because consenting adults should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.  This argument applies not just to gay marriages but multiple marriages as well.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  



It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

Given much of the blather within many of those posts, I try to cull the chaff and respond to the wheat.  The full quotes are available on this page for citation, if someone thinks I have taken them out of context.

[TA Pilot]

Maybe if polygamists didn't have such a nasty habit of forcing girls into marriages or marrying 13 year old girls they wouldn't have such a bad stigma.  Or maybe there are practical reasons to limit it such as the exponential complications of divorce and custody and inheritence, etc. that might be introduced.  Who knows?

Interesting.
What would you say if I were to use these arguments, or those similar, against gay marriage?


We're talking about the fact that the state currently has a law that allows two adults to merge into a single legal unit so they can share things like health insurance coverage and child raising and so on, but that the state is drawing restrictions along religious lines to exclude gays.

Thats exactly right.

Because the state has determined that in order to receive the benefits of the privilege of marriage, you have to meet certain critera.  One of those criteria is that one of the people be a man and the other a woman.

You can argue all you want that the state --should-- define marriage in some other way, but you have to convince the majority of the people that they want it that way.

Good luck.

Note too that the cruix of the biscuit is the right of a state to define marriage as it sees fit and not have the laws or courts of another state forcing them to accept an alternate definition.  In specific, a state court in MA cannot carry more legal wright in the state of Ohio than the constiitution of the state of Ohio.

This is why states have amended their constitution to this end, and why there is a federal amendment in the works.



It's possible for someone to say, "Yeah....it makes sense to extend (or rather cease withholding if you prefer) that right to gays," without saying, "There should be no limits on how the institution of marriage can be used."

EXCEPT that the basis of the argument - that consenting adults should be allowed to marry, regardless - equally applies to the polygamist as to the gay.  IF the argument is valid for the latter then it is valid for the former; if you accept one argument, there's no way to not accpet the other.

And at that point, marriage as an institution loses all meaning.

One has to wonder if -that- is the ultimate goal of the left.

[patrickl]

Dear lord, are people still reding this thread?

[shmokes]

by the way...i added a bunch of stuff to my last post and you were likely in the process of replying while i was modifying so you wouldn't have seen it.  just an fyi.

[saint]

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.

Marriage is a bond between two people who form a family unit. My relationship with my wife is no more affected by two same sex people forming a bond than it is by the staggering number of heterosexual couple who are getting divorced. My love for my wife is not affected by two other people loving or hating one another. Anyone whose relationship could be altered because of the relationship of two other people should be seriously questioning the strength and validity of their own relationship, not looking askew at someone else's.

To say that a gay marriage cheapens a heterosexual's marriage implies some sort of scarcity of available marriage partners or some kind of strange competition. I don't understand that thinking at all. There's not a limited number of marriages allowed per year. A gay marriage doesn't suddenly make fewer partners available for heterosexual people (they were never available in the first place, married or not).

Does the marriage of two gay people suddenly make my marriage to my wife less valued in the eyes of the church or God? If so, why? My committment and love for my wife hasn't changed, why should its value in the eyes of the church or God? Gay people getting married doesn't make me go to church less, pray less, have less faith. If your belief and faith can be changed by the actions of someone else, it's your faith that has an issue, not the actions of the other person.

Does a marriage of two gay people suddenly change the value of my marriage to the state? Does the amount of taxes I pay suddenly change? Do I, as a heterosexual married man, suddenly become a threat to society because a gay couple gets married? If not, then how exactly does a gay marriage undermine my marriage?

The family unit in America is not being threatened by gay people. It's being threatened by people getting married on a whim, the staggering heterosexual divorce rate, parents who aren't involved in the lives of their children, and other issues that are clearly on the shoulders of heterosexual, often (but not always) church-going people. These people aren't necessarily evil, but when looking for the cause of some of the major ills in this country, hold up a mirror before holding up a pointing finger.

As a side note, gay people getting married are for the most part taking themselves out of the gene pool. (For the record, I believe a faithfully married gay couple should be allowed to adopt children, have children via artificial means, etc.  This last comment was tongue-in-cheek for the anti-gay-marriage crowd).

--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

[shmokes]

I think, TA, that all of this stuff: States rights, the institution of marriage losing it's "meaning" all stems from your seeming inability to separate marriage as an institution of the state from marriage as a religious institution.  

The full faith and credit clause is in the constitution for the express purpose of making a Michigan Supreme Court ruling supercede Ohio's constitution.  If I go to Ohio they are required by federal law to recognize my marriage, in spite of the fact that I got married in Utah so I didn't have to have any blood tests done (for argument let's say that Ohio requires them -- many states do).  

The reason that conservatives need an amendment to the U.S. constitution is that all of these state laws and amendments being passed clearly violate the U.S. Constitution.  As long as you consider marriage an institution of the state you can't get around full faith and credit.  As soon as you consider it an institution of religion it's unconstitutional with or without a ban on gay marriages.

[shmokes]

Y'all are skirting the separation of church and state issue pretty close with your "protect the sanctity" campaign.

Sanctity -

   1.  Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
   2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
   3. Something considered sacred.

Sacred -

   1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
   2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
   3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
   4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
   5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
   6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.


edit: definitions courtesy of www.dictionary.com

[TA Pilot]

To say that a gay marriage cheapens a heterosexual's marriage...

But thats not the argument I'm making.



"I think, TA, that all of this stuff: States rights, the institution of marriage losing it's "meaning" all stems from your seeming inability to separate marriage as an institution of the state from marriage as a religious institution.

Thats a very interesting position, given that I haven't mentioned marriage as a religious institution.

If you want to be married 'before God' thats wonderful - do so.    Man+man, woman+woman, 6 men+4 women+goat - if you thinkl God is OK with that, then gettt married before Him.

But unless that marriage also follows the laws of the state, then its not valid.



"The full faith and credit clause is in the constitution for the express purpose of making a Michigan Supreme Court ruling supercede Ohio's constitution."

Abso-LUTE-ly false.

The FF+CC has everyting to do with states having to recognize contracts, licenses, etc issued by one state.  This stems from a weakness of the Articles of Confederation that had no such provision.  States would refuse to recognize all kinds of things.  This was seen as a problem, and the FF+CC was added.

NOTHING in the FF+CC was EVER intended to let a court in one state to force another state to recognize something illegal in th at state.  There NO way you can do that.

Look at it like this:
The OHSC says its legal to mount a machinegun to my truck and drive around the state.  Your're arguing that CA, where machineguns are illegal, is forced to recognize the OHSC ruling and allow me to do something in CA that the people of CA cannot do.

Doesnt work that way.



" If I go to Ohio they are required by federal law to recognize my marriage"

Actually, they are required by the FF+CC.  Federal law says that if yours is a same-sex marriage, Ohio does NOT have to recognize it.



"The reason that conservatives need an amendment to the U.S. constitution is that all of these state laws and amendments being passed clearly violate the U.S. Constitution"

No.  They dont.  There's nothing in the Constitution that protects marriage, gay or otherwise.  OH can define marriage however it sees fit -- in fact, OH can even dissolve the institution completely, and there's nothing the Fed Gcmnt can do about it.



"As long as you consider marriage an institution of the state you can't get around full faith and credit."

And here, you make my case.  The amendment is to protect the right of the state to define marriage as is chooses, without having to be bound by the laws of another state - especially law created by the bench

[allroy1975]

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.
.......
--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

I didn't want to use all that space just to quote the message....

I just wanted to let you know, Saint, I'm even happier now that I bought your book and hopefully helped support you a little bit.  I wear my BYOAC hat everywhere I go and every time I tell someone about my mame cabs, I tell them to visit your site.  

It makes me happy to see that the leader of the board is open minded.  Makes me feel like I have less chance of getting banned.   hehehe....

I'm just glad to see someone else who doesn't feel the need to control others just ...well, i don't know why but...That post made me happy.

Allroy

[shmokes]

" If I go to Ohio they are required by federal law to recognize my marriage"

Actually, they are required by the FF+CC.  

Well...yeah.  I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the FF+CC

And you misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that the FF+CC gives the Michigan Supreme Court carte blanche to dictate whatever it wants in another state.  I'm saying that marriage contracts fall under FF+CC.  So, if someone gets married legally in one state, other states (short of a U.S. Constitutional amendment) have to recognize the marriage.  That's why I gave the example about blood tests.  

It's why businesses incorporate in Delaware.  It's why people cross the border to  elope if they live in a state (like Ohio) that requires a waiting period.  It's why my marriage is recognized by states that require blood testing even though it would be illegal had I got married in the same way in that state.  

So, no, FF+CC does not allow you to drive around with a mounted machine gun.  It does, however, apply to contract recognition, including marriage.  Including gay marriage.  Short of a constitutional amendment.

[DrewKaree]

It's like arguing

Hardly.  It's more like talking to a wall.

with the Bush haters.

That's not even a complete sentence.  How am I supposed to respond to that.

That's some election iron

An election iron?  Is that supposed to get the wrinkles out of an election?

y

I don't speak spanish.

THAT is all kinds of funny!    

[saint]

To say that a gay marriage cheapens a heterosexual's marriage...
But thats not the argument I'm making.

Fair enough. I've revised my post below:

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.

Marriage is a bond between two people who form a family unit. My relationship with my wife is no more affected by two same sex people forming a bond than it is by the staggering number of heterosexual couple who are getting divorced. My love for my wife is not affected by two other people loving or hating one another. Anyone whose relationship could be altered because of the relationship of two other people should be seriously questioning the strength and validity of their own relationship, not looking askew at someone else's.

To say that a gay marriage undermines the long-held sanctity of marriage implies some alteration of conventional marriages -- some sort of scarcity of available marriage partners or some kind of strange competition. I don't understand that thinking at all. There's not a limited number of marriages allowed per year. A gay marriage doesn't suddenly make fewer partners available for heterosexual people (they were never available in the first place, married or not).

Does the marriage of two gay people suddenly make my marriage to my wife less valued in the eyes of the church or God? If so, why? My committment and love for my wife hasn't changed, why should its value in the eyes of the church or God? Gay people getting married doesn't make me go to church less, pray less, have less faith. If your belief and faith can be changed by the actions of someone else, it's your faith that has an issue, not the actions of the other person.

Does a marriage of two gay people suddenly change the value of my marriage to the state? Does the amount of taxes I pay suddenly change? Do I, as a heterosexual married man, suddenly become a threat to society because a gay couple gets married? If not, then how exactly does a gay marriage undermine my marriage?

The family unit in America is not being threatened by gay people. It's being threatened by people getting married on a whim, the staggering heterosexual divorce rate, parents who aren't involved in the lives of their children, and other issues that are clearly on the shoulders of heterosexual, often (but not always) church-going people. These people aren't necessarily evil, but when looking for the cause of some of the major ills in this country, hold up a mirror before holding up a pointing finger.

As a side note, gay people getting married are for the most part taking themselves out of the gene pool. (For the record, I believe a faithfully married gay couple should be allowed to adopt children, have children via artificial means, etc.  This last comment was tongue-in-cheek for the anti-gay-marriage crowd).

--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

[saint]

Thanks

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.
.......
--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

I didn't want to use all that space just to quote the message....

I just wanted to let you know, Saint, I'm even happier now that I bought your book and hopefully helped support you a little bit.  I wear my BYOAC hat everywhere I go and every time I tell someone about my mame cabs, I tell them to visit your site.  

It makes me happy to see that the leader of the board is open minded.  Makes me feel like I have less chance of getting banned.   hehehe....

I'm just glad to see someone else who doesn't feel the need to control others just ...well, i don't know why but...That post made me happy.

Allroy

[GGKoul]

In Canada, where Gay Marriages are allowed.  There was a major resistance to allowing Gay Marriages by the Insurance companies.  As they will now be on the line to pay out more spousal benefits.  

But since the Lobbiest have little pull with the Canadian Government, there was little they could do too stop the bill allowing same sex marriages.

[Crazy Cooter]

So... other than the "gay marriage vs religious beliefs" arguement, has there been an actual reason to not allow it?

I think there would be some issues about allowing multiple partners that would have to be ironed out (splitting benefits etc.), but that wouldn't be present allowing two chicks/dudes to be married.  Besides peoples prejudice, IS there an issue?

I think laws should only be made when there is a reason.  They should serve a purpose.  What reason and/or purpose is there to not allow them to be married?

[GGKoul]

So... other than the "gay marriage vs religious beliefs" arguement, has there been an actual reason to not allow it?

Insurance companies not wanting to pay more for spousal benefits.

[Dexter]

In Canada, where Gay Marriages are allowed.  There was a major resistance to allowing Gay Marriages by the Insurance companies.  As they will now be on the line to pay out more spousal benefits.

Check this out.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1109/gay.html
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1284154&issue_id=11665

Two lesbians who got married legally in Canada are sueing the Irish government to have their marriage recognised here in Ireland. Irish and EU law does not allow for discrimination by sex or sexual orientation. Although Irish law doesn't allow for gay marriage it will be illegal not to have their Canadian marriage recognised because they are not a hetrosexual couple. Interesting times ahead.

Dexter

[TA Pilot]

Two lesbians who got married legally in Canada are sueing the Irish government to have their marriage recognised here in Ireland. Irish and EU law does not allow for discrimination by sex or sexual orientation. Although Irish law doesn't allow for gay marriage it will be illegal not to have their Canadian marriage recognised because they are not a hetrosexual couple. Interesting times ahead.

And this is why there is an amendment under consideration - because the exact same thing will happen here.

Because its legal in MA, it must be legal in OH, even though OH law - the OH Constitution -forbids it.  The states will not stand for this, and will certainly pass the amendment.

[Dexter]

Because its legal in MA, it must be legal in OH, even though OH law - the OH Constitution -forbids it.  The states will not stand for this, and will certainly pass the amendment.

Hmm, I'm always cautious of people amending any part of a constitution, especially when it serves to reinforce discrimination and intolerance. Simply because something does not suit your moral viewpoint does not give you the right to opress another persons rights.

Reminds me of the part in Animal Farm (not the prono guys) when the pigs change the most fundamental law 'all animals are equal' to 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'.

Dexter

[locash]

I have very little fear that such an amendment would be ratified.  I believe that those in the legislature will remember that the purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict the rights of the people, but rather to restrict the power of the government.

[shmokes]

I believe that there is enough support in Congress to pass an amendment.  If not in Congress it likely would be ratified by enough state legislatures to push it through.  It's sad.  I hope I'm wrong.

[locash]

An amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass and then requires a 3/4 majority of the states to be ratified.  Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I don't think this has much more than simple majority support in Congress.   It has been a long time since they tried to amend the constitution to restrict rights (1919 if I remember correctly) and I think the lesson may have been learned.

Without the 2/3 house majority, a Constitutional Convention would be required for an amendment.  This has never been done and there would be a lot of procedural questions that would need to be addressed before it could even be attempted.