The real story that's never mentioned with all the anti-gay marriage amendment stuff is that it shouldn't require an amendment to state/federal constitutions. The reason it does is because you have judges that don't adhere to the letter of the law but instead feel free to impose their own policy preferences on the rest of us.

The text of the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and there is nothing in the text, nothing at all, to prevent state or federal governments from defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.*

The point is that contentious social/moral issues like these are precisely the kind of hot-button topics that were meant to be decided democratically, not by a few lawyers in black robes. Hopefully issues like this will make people realize that having judges that respect the rule of law is of the uptmost importance.

*Don't even attempt to argue "Equal Protection" here. Equal Protection jurisprudence over the last 50 years is a joke, and has strayed so far from the original intent and text of the Constitution as to be indeciperable. Read correctly (i.e., actually following what the EP clause says instead of what one wants it to say) there is no Equal Protection issue, because the same definition of marriage applies to EVERYONE:

No person, straight or gay, can marry a person of the same sex.

Furious-

It is THEIR belief that they should be able to get married adopt kids so on and so forth. It is MY belief that they should not. Now you are telling me I am pushing my belief and yet when the table is turned, well they are not trying to push their belief onto me? You can't be hypocritical. This is a very slippery slope that we are heading down.

quote:

---

George - come on dude seriously - how is 2 people wanting to get married pushing their beliefs on you? Also how is you wanting to dictate what 2 people can do NOT pushing your beliefs on them?

And Inugo - marriage should be about more than just 1 man and 1 woman. Even if you don't think gays should be married you should at least know there's more to it than that.

---

POTD, furious.

some people will never get it.







[This message has been edited by toothag03 (edited 10/26/2005 11:00a).]

[This message has been edited by toothag03 (edited 10/26/2005 11:01a).]

[This message has been edited by toothag03 (edited 10/26/2005 11:02a).]

guitarboy -

You realize the problems with foster kids right? The abuse, neglect, etc? Guess what - all hetero homes. Look at all the messed up kids in this country that all came from "normal" marriages. It's sickening.

It's amazing that you think that all gays will be bad parents because by definition they do "unnatural" things but there's so many "unnatural" things that heteros engage in and it's OK. Is it just a comfort filter?

Even more amazing is that I am now referred to as an "Aggie" like I'm the redheaded stepchild.

Sorry Hellraiser, voting down the amendment because of your shackup girlfriend's personal health insurance is short sighted and irresponsible. Vote for the amendment on the true merits of the amendment. If your so concerned for her well being, then show your committment and marry her or apply for student health insurance from the school. It just a cost of deciding to quit a job and focus solely on school. The lack of health insurance is a problem for people without any access to affordable insurance. Your girlfriend will have access, you just don't won't to pay for it.

Outlaw

Furious-

people are afraid of what is unfamiliar and what they don't understand.

quote:

---

oh well, i vote no, against the moral majority self righteous closed minded insecure unoriginal hypocritical extremist christian conservative oil and big corporate contracts for american soldier's lives (2,000 and counting) right wing establishment warmongering ba$tards.

---

There seems to be an abundance of these types on this board.

Isn't it great to be an American.

yes. yes, it is.

WestHorn - Excellent post. The text of HJR 6 addresses many of the arguments being used against this amendment:

quote:

---

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance
policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

---

This is not a case of "Christians" trying to "force" values upon anyone. It is up for a popular vote. Rather than venue shopping for a judge to decide or overturn laws, let the people decide.

George -

The difference is this: you are trying to dictate what someone can and cannot do. They just want all the things that you and I take for granted - nothing more, nothing less. They are not telling you what you can or cannot do.

If you cannot see the difference I really feel for ya.

Furious, Why put the unnatural in quotation marks like is not an accurate statement. This argrument is the one that surely falls flat for gay rights activist. Personal views aside, scientifically the union of same sex people is not natural because of their inability to pro-create.

Good debate, from both sides. Regardless of the outcome of this ammendment it is great that we live in a country where you can have differing views and yet not get killed for it, granted we are on a anonymous message board but you get my point. While I may not agree with toothag, furious, etc. I am proud to be an American.

cue Lee Greenwood, "Proud to be an American"

outlaw - the reason is this:

I know plenty of guys that brag and go crazy when a girl let's them "try other options" during sex. Some guys prefer it. Does this now lower them to homosexual status? Should their marriage be null and void?

If you want to get technical than everything aside from coitus is depraved and unnatural and anyone that engages in them should therefore be outcast. But nobody will take up that banner - but why? Because they would be hypocritical and also because they wouldn't have the numbers to win. In the end this is only a debate because the "moral" people of this country think they can win.

quote:

---

Sorry Hellraiser, voting down the amendment because of your shackup girlfriend's personal health insurance is short sighted and irresponsible. Vote for the amendment on the true merits of the amendment. If your so concerned for her well being, then show your committment and marry her or apply for student health insurance from the school. It just a cost of deciding to quit a job and focus solely on school. The lack of health insurance is a problem for people without any access to affordable insurance. Your girlfriend will have access, you just don't won't to pay for it.

Outlaw

---

As I said, we plan on getting married anyway, but it takes time to plan such things (granted, I'd be fine with a Vegas wedding!)

As for her access, don't be so niave. She has a health condition that would cause most individual providers to either exclude that or exclue her completely.

And it's not short sightedness as I think domestic partner benefits should continue.

Hook 'Em Horns

Hellraiser97

--

"Ya'll can go to Hell, I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS" -- Davy Crockett

quote:

---

scientifically the union of same sex people is not natural because of their inability to pro-create.

---

This argument always gets to me. What about heterosexual people that are infertile or choose not to have children? Are their unions "unnatural"?

quote:

---

Why should only the heterosexual men have to suffer?

---

Beautiful.

Sweet when gay marriage is allowed we can always look forward to great commercials like this one being played on TV.

http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=348

What's funny to me is that you actually took the time to search for that...

Hootie I didn't search it, it is on killsometime that has some funny videos, this one happens to be on the front page today. But if you choose to believe otherwise please continue to do so.

quote:

---

If you want to get technical than everything aside from coitus is depraved and unnatural and anyone that engages in them should therefore be outcast.

---

quote:

---

This argument always gets to me. What about heterosexual people that are infertile or choose not to have children? Are their unions "unnatural"?

---

Oh come on. Don't be obtuse.

His point is that, biologically, sexual attraction is a naturally-selected evolutionary response to drive pro-creation, which is the basest instinctual urge rivalled only by self-preservation. Since same-sex sexual attraction does not serve this purpose, biologically speaking homosexuality is a mutation, an anomoly, a genetic failure, as are birth defects and mental disorders.

I'm not anti-gay in the least, but that's the truth.

[This message has been edited by West Horn (edited 10/26/2005 11:56a).]

quote:

---

guitarboy -

You realize the problems with foster kids right? The abuse, neglect, etc? Guess what - all hetero homes. Look at all the messed up kids in this country that all came from "normal" marriages. It's sickening.

It's amazing that you think that all gays will be bad parents because by definition they do "unnatural" things but there's so many "unnatural" things that heteros engage in and it's OK. Is it just a comfort filter?

Even more amazing is that I am now referred to as an "Aggie" like I'm the redheaded stepchild.

---

Don't equate the abuse of children to this issue. Yes there is a problem but that does not mean that we should take away a child’s rights to be reared by a upstanding moral man and an upstanding moral woman. Fact is these children have no chance in a Gay home of understanding what a natural relationship is when they are forced to live in an unnatural one.

No one is saying that the current system is perfect but that does not mean that you send a child into an unnatural situation because they hold a job and act monogamous.

It's hard enough for a kid to grow up in this society why add to his/her burden the fact that a homosexual couple adopted them.

BTW why does this issue always come back to an issue of workers rights? There is a big difference between workers rights and Gay marriage. Applying healthcare benefits is not a justification for Gay marriage. I agree that people should be able to apply their health care benefits to their partners regardless if they are married or not. They should be able to apply them to their sick parents or extended family members. This is not Gay marriage and we should not think that redefining a marriage is somehow equal to fixing a workers rights issue.

Yeah...it's impossible for a child to grow up in a gay home and have a normal relationship. Good thing no one told this guy.
http://www.christiangays.com/articles/homerun.shtml

One of my best friends was raised by 2 women. He is a college graduate, gainfully employed, and has been married for 10 years with 2 great kids. Another friend...raised by 2 heterosexual parents is already on her 3rd husband at the age of 33.

I think saying that it is impossible for gay people to raise happy and normal children is a bit ridiculous and closed-minded.

[This message has been edited by Hootie (edited 10/26/2005 12:17p).]

quote:

---

I agree that people should be able to apply their health care benefits to their partners regardless if they are married or not. They should be able to apply them to their sick parents or extended family members.

---

that's a bunch of bull crap

quote:

---

I think saying that it is impossible for gay people to raise happy and normal children is a bit ridiculous and closed-minded.

---

You don't make broad public policy decisions based on what's "not impossible" and/or andecdotal evidence of individual cases.

There are reams upon reams of hard data showing that, statistically speaking, children raised in a traditional two-parent home do better by every relevant metric than those raised in any other familial arrangement. I think that should be the norm and the standard until we see equally conclusive evidence to the contrary.

For me this is not an issue of traditional versus non-traditioanl marraige values- it is a human rights issue- PERIOD. We are being asked to say that it is ok to discriminate LEGALLY against a CHOSEN group of people. That is notthe governments job- in fact, they are supposed to ELIMINATE discrimination.

For you slippery slope crowd, what is the next acceptable group to be LEGALLY discriminated against? Fat people? Skinny people? Old people? Ugly people? and further, who decides? Starting to sound a little bit like pre-WWII Germany.

As for traditional marraige, which tradition are we talking about merely different sexces- or those valued and daily traditions of cheating on the spouse, spousal abuse (physical, verbal and mental), etc.? Pedophiles are another great traditoinal marraige traditonal- yep, 90%+ are aged 35-50, MARRIED (IN THE TRADITIONAL MANNER), with 2+ children- theres a good one to protect.

Further, what difference does it make- it does not affect you or me- unles you are scared you will divorce your wife and marry Bob next door-or that your wife will do the same and marry Alice next door instead. Sheesh!

As for raising kids in a non-traditional way. I know seveal same sex couples who are the most loving, caring and nurturing folks in the world to their kids. Their kids are well balanced, well terated and encouraged through every step of the way. How can that be bad?

It is time for busybodies and our government to get the hell out of other folks business and work on teh things that affect everyone- the economy, rising insurance costs, etc.

Just my humble opinion.

PS, read the proposed amendment VERY CAREFULLY. IF you do, you will find that as worded it describes your socalled "traditional marraige" as man and women, syas that same sex is bad AND that ..."no ceremony LIKE OR SIMILAR" shall be alloweed". So basically ANY marraige will be outlawed LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY. SO I am concerned if my TExas marraige will stand as legal or not.

Typicall government and lawyer crap.

WestHorn:

I was responding to the statement below...not implying that these cases are what we should base public policy on. Just disagreeing with his statement that there is NO chance for children of gay parents to be normal.

quote:

---

Fact is these children have no chance in a Gay home of understanding what a natural relationship is when they are forced to live in an unnatural one.

---

quote:

---

Yeah...it's impossible for a child to grow up in a gay home and have a normal relationship. Good thing no one told this guy.
http://www.christiangays.com/articles/homerun.shtml

One of my best friends was raised by 2 women. He is a college graduate, gainfully employed, and has been married for 10 years with 2 great kids. Another friend...raised by 2 heterosexual parents is already on her 3rd husband at the age of 33.

I think saying that it is impossible for gay people to raise happy and normal children is a bit ridiculous and closed-minded.

---

I'm happy for your friend, but this is not the norm but rather the exception. And there are lots of people who have good parents that lead screwed up lives and lots of people with screwed up parents that turn out ok.

By pointing out one person does not equate to the entire population. As they say in statistics, correlation does not imply causation. There were probably other influences in your friends life that helped him along outside of his mothers relationship. The same holds true for those people who grow up in a good home and go bad or vice versa.

Again you skate around the issue because you don't address the fact that the formative years of a child are when they begin to understand the world around them. If they are being raised in a homosexual home they will see this as the norm and then when their hetrosexual tendencies come out they will not know how to handle them. They will not know how a man acts because the gender role of man and woman are confused.

quote:

---

They will not know how a man acts because the gender role of man and woman are confused.

---

What about children from single parent families where the mother takes on the role of mother AND father?

And by the way...I'm not suggesting that it is better for a child to be raised in a homosexual family. I think that children are better off in a home with a mother and a father. However, I do feel like in the absence of that possiblility (eg. foster children who have a hard time being placed) a homosexual couple can raise a productive and normal child.

[This message has been edited by Hootie (edited 10/26/2005 12:46p).]

Where to start with this screed.....

quote:

---

We are being asked to say that it is ok to discriminate LEGALLY against a CHOSEN group of people. That is notthe governments job- in fact, they are supposed to ELIMINATE discrimination.

---

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not discriminate against homosexuals. Straight people are equally barred from marrying those of the same sex. But the "discrimination" argument is a red herring anyway.

quote:

---

Starting to sound a little bit like pre-WWII Germany.

---

LOL! Don't you know the first rule of political debate? First one to resort to Nazi comparisons loses.

quote:

---

It is time for busybodies and our government to get the hell out of other folks business....

---

As a libertarian, I am as distrustful of government as anyone. But because we're talking about marriage -- a government sanctioned and defined institution -- government is necessarily entangled in the issue from the start. So what you then must ask yourself is: What's the least intrusive and abusive role for government here?

Which is worse:

Leaving the definition of marriage, an inherently social and moral issue, to will of the people as applied through the democratic process?

Or granting the least accountable branch of government (judges) the authority to arbitarily impose their own policy preferences, against the will of the people?

I choose the former. How come those that scream the loudest about being "open-minded" seem to most fear competition in the arena of ideas? If you believe your side is right, then you should welcome the chance to persuade the public to see and choose your position.

quote:

---

You don't make broad public policy decisions based on what's "not impossible" and/or andecdotal evidence of individual cases.

There are reams upon reams of hard data showing that, statistically speaking, children raised in a traditional two-parent home do better by every relevant metric than those raised in any other familial arrangement. I think that should be the norm and the standard until we see equally conclusive evidence to the contrary.

---

Really, care to post some of those studies?

BTW, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm actually sort of indifferent to the idea of civil unions/gay marriage.....I primarily care about this issue in light of its larger implications.

West Horn:
maybe yy comaprison to "Nazi Germany" was over the the top. But, you had a government that decided who/what was acceptable and no one else was allowed to disagree. So I still have concerns as to where does all of this end.

I am all for public debate, but I am not one who wants the government to take over making all of the decisions about our lives. They already do a piss poor job of the things that we absolutely need their leadership in. Why shoud I trust taht they will not screw this one up to.

West Horn:
I agree with your last post completely. I am concerned about the broader impact.