A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight
Edited:
Quote:
A strong America must also value the institution of segregation. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of a Separate America, signed in 1956 by President Eisenhower. That statute protects segregation under Federal law as the separation of Negroes and whites, and declares that one state may not redefine segregation for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining segregation by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of segregation.
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines segregation also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight
Bush has only said that he would do what is legally necessary. If other options are left available, I'm sure he would prefer them. It doesn't appear this court cares to give anyone an option of how to deal with this. They've not not only ruled on the rights, but what legislation could be written to address those rights. They have clearly radically overstepped their role.
Nick
Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.
The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."
Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.
The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."
....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.
As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.
I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?
Here's the nice language from the actual Mass ruling relating to why they made their decision as they did.
Quote:
We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).
Can anyone think of a "rational" basis for leaving it at two persons, excluding family members, etc. that allows for homosexual marriage?
If one person is less stable and conserving than two people. Then aren't 3,4 or 5 marriage partners even more stable and conserving?
(Should we even get into suing to stop no fault divorce based off the fact that it appears to add to the state obligation?)
With incest, heck they are blood so that is pretty stable with regard to insuring family continuity. Is there a rational basis to believe that two cousins being married are any less stable or conserving than two homosexuals marrying?
The court considers marriage a licensing issue and that the state should have great leeway to decide who should be allowed to be married. They then give a great big BUT, and say homosexual marriage should be allowed unless the legislature can give what the court will accept as a rational reason to exclude it.
The two reasons cited above allow the licensing of many different family forms in my opinion. I cannot see how it would allow homosexual marriage, but exclude others from being licensed.
But what is the Sanctity of Marriage? I don't get it... how does it protect it?
The most important thing about a marriage is that it only occurs between a man and a woman?
50% of marriages end in divorce. Why aren't we banning that? Maybe there should be a 30 day waiting period before you can marry... you know... to protect the sanctity.
Lets try stir up more debate. Why are people straight or gay? The "right" thing to say is that thats the way people are and nothing can change that or that the genes deside that. I disagree. I believe its a social thing with a lot of factors with the genes playing a minor role.
I think its a combination of things...I believe that the majority of people definitely have a 'hardwired' predisposition to be physically attracted to people of the opposite sex / the same sex / both. However, I don't believe that these predispositions are necessarily 100% one way or the other...nor do I believe that they will necessarily remain constant over time. Some people may tend to be attracted to the opposite sex, but still also feel attraction to the same sex (and vice-versa). I know gay men who say they have never found themselves physically attracted to women and I know gay men who one day realized (sometimes after years of dating women) that they preferred men. I know hetro women who 'experimented in college' but have only dated men since and I know gay women who have only ever been interested in dating women. I also know one or two people who genuinely can't seem to decide what they prefer.
To the extent that societal factors come into play, it is when the (internal) cost to an individual of suppressing or denying his or her physical attraction to the same sex is weighed against the (social) cost of acting on this attraction. I imagine that it is generally a lot easier for someone born and raised in Manhattan to come out than it is for someone born and raised in a small town in Alabama. If the person born and raised in Manhattan has deeply homophobic parents and the person born and raised in small town Alabama has parents who place their child?s happiness above all else the opposite would probably be true.
....
I'm still interested in knowing how allowing same-sex marriages will cause damage to the institution of marriage though (specious 'gateway drug to people marrying multiple underage pigs' argument aside).
Sigh. I´ll close this even if I think its a good topic and people have posted relevant posts up untill now. But even the best beer is ruined if people piss in it.
Why oh why do people feel the urge to go down to the level of others when the personal attacks start?
Even if it was just goofing around it makes it very difficult to read. And "friendly insults" have a tendency to turn unfriendly rather quickly here.
We are trying to get a "cleaner" AO where you don´t have to wade thorugh a lot of irrelevant stuff to get to the interesting stuff. If you read a heading you are to expect that the posts inside at least some minimal way relate to it.
In short we are trying to keep the noise/signal ration as low as possible.
I´ll reopen the thread now since everybody seems commited to get it on track again.
....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.
As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.
I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?
Nick
"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.
The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
Quote:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.
Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.
Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.
It isn't up to government to protect the "sanctity" of anything.
Quote:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
sanctity
SYLLABICATION: sanc·ti·ty
PRONUNCIATION: sngkt-t
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English saunctite, from Old French sainctite, from Latin snctits, from snctus, sacred. See sanctify.
Government is concerned with the validity or legality. Sanctity is for the church.
Comments
Original:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight
Edited:
A strong America must also value the institution of segregation. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of a Separate America, signed in 1956 by President Eisenhower. That statute protects segregation under Federal law as the separation of Negroes and whites, and declares that one state may not redefine segregation for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining segregation by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of segregation.
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines segregation also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight
Hmmm
Originally posted by HOM
Perhaps some historical editing is needed.
Original:
Edited:
Hmmm
You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush has only said that he would do what is legally necessary. If other options are left available, I'm sure he would prefer them. It doesn't appear this court cares to give anyone an option of how to deal with this. They've not not only ruled on the rights, but what legislation could be written to address those rights. They have clearly radically overstepped their role.
Nick
Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.
The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."
Originally posted by BRussell
Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.
The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."
....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.
As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.
I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?
Nick
Originally posted by tmp
Right back atcha buddy.
Me and my pet pig are picking out a china pattern as I speak.
I wanted to throw rice after the wedding, but your invitation said something about the bride stopping and eating it.
Nick
We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).
Can anyone think of a "rational" basis for leaving it at two persons, excluding family members, etc. that allows for homosexual marriage?
If one person is less stable and conserving than two people. Then aren't 3,4 or 5 marriage partners even more stable and conserving?
(Should we even get into suing to stop no fault divorce based off the fact that it appears to add to the state obligation?)
With incest, heck they are blood so that is pretty stable with regard to insuring family continuity. Is there a rational basis to believe that two cousins being married are any less stable or conserving than two homosexuals marrying?
The court considers marriage a licensing issue and that the state should have great leeway to decide who should be allowed to be married. They then give a great big BUT, and say homosexual marriage should be allowed unless the legislature can give what the court will accept as a rational reason to exclude it.
The two reasons cited above allow the licensing of many different family forms in my opinion. I cannot see how it would allow homosexual marriage, but exclude others from being licensed.
Nick
Originally posted by tmp
You must have been invited by the brides family.
Maybe by the bride.
She did mention that what you don't know won't hurt you.
Her snout is so cute and what an energetic tongue as well.
She has quite an appetite.
Nick
Originally posted by tmp
Yes, she has does have an unfortunate taste for swill...
Well I know that... look at the groom.
But she does have an occasional sweet tooth.
Nick
The most important thing about a marriage is that it only occurs between a man and a woman?
50% of marriages end in divorce. Why aren't we banning that? Maybe there should be a 30 day waiting period before you can marry... you know... to protect the sanctity.
Originally posted by Anders
Lets try stir up more debate. Why are people straight or gay? The "right" thing to say is that thats the way people are and nothing can change that or that the genes deside that. I disagree. I believe its a social thing with a lot of factors with the genes playing a minor role.
I think its a combination of things...I believe that the majority of people definitely have a 'hardwired' predisposition to be physically attracted to people of the opposite sex / the same sex / both. However, I don't believe that these predispositions are necessarily 100% one way or the other...nor do I believe that they will necessarily remain constant over time. Some people may tend to be attracted to the opposite sex, but still also feel attraction to the same sex (and vice-versa). I know gay men who say they have never found themselves physically attracted to women and I know gay men who one day realized (sometimes after years of dating women) that they preferred men. I know hetro women who 'experimented in college' but have only dated men since and I know gay women who have only ever been interested in dating women. I also know one or two people who genuinely can't seem to decide what they prefer.
To the extent that societal factors come into play, it is when the (internal) cost to an individual of suppressing or denying his or her physical attraction to the same sex is weighed against the (social) cost of acting on this attraction. I imagine that it is generally a lot easier for someone born and raised in Manhattan to come out than it is for someone born and raised in a small town in Alabama. If the person born and raised in Manhattan has deeply homophobic parents and the person born and raised in small town Alabama has parents who place their child?s happiness above all else the opposite would probably be true.
....
I'm still interested in knowing how allowing same-sex marriages will cause damage to the institution of marriage though (specious 'gateway drug to people marrying multiple underage pigs' argument aside).
Originally posted by tmp
Well, then I should just step aside and leave you two love birds to take advantage of that loophole that you are so desperately trying to find.
Naw, it was only an occasional thing. Plus you two were picking out china already.
I'm going to go after Ann Coulter. She's better than a pig. She's a boozy blond tramp.
Nick
Why oh why do people feel the urge to go down to the level of others when the personal attacks start?
EDIT: As explained here:
Even if it was just goofing around it makes it very difficult to read. And "friendly insults" have a tendency to turn unfriendly rather quickly here.
We are trying to get a "cleaner" AO where you don´t have to wade thorugh a lot of irrelevant stuff to get to the interesting stuff. If you read a heading you are to expect that the posts inside at least some minimal way relate to it.
In short we are trying to keep the noise/signal ration as low as possible.
I´ll reopen the thread now since everybody seems commited to get it on track again.
Originally posted by trumptman
....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.
As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.
I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?
Nick
"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.
The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.
Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.
Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.
P.S.
It isn't up to government to protect the "sanctity" of anything.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
sanctity
SYLLABICATION: sanc·ti·ty
PRONUNCIATION: sngkt-t
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English saunctite, from Old French sainctite, from Latin snctits, from snctus, sacred. See sanctify.
Government is concerned with the validity or legality. Sanctity is for the church.
Barring people from the ability to marry excludes them from those privleges.
State recognized marriage is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.
Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.
It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.