Bush plans to ammend the Constitution
 

Bush plans on sending an ammendment though Congress that will effectively ban gay marriage.

Yes, I know that's all we need, another gay marriage thread, but this one is slightly different.

Bush has specifically mentioned religious roots as one of the main thrusts that he is attempting to ban gay marriage. This is what really drives me crazy. We have the separation of church and state for a reason, and that is to avoid intolerance and bias such as this.

I'm not saying that gay marriage is right or wrong, I am just saying that the government has no right to regulate it like this.

Comments??

Religious basis for legislation is not the same as establishment of religion, and the majority rules in this country. The majority of people in this country are Christian and will therefore support laws based on Christian values.

Homosexuality, however, is too hot of an issue to press like this and a lot of Christians don't have a problem with it. There's no way 2/3 of Congress will get behind such an amendment.

Actually, according to a poll I saw on my local news, 60% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages. It is really sad that our country can be so intolerent of other people when we are supposed to follow the idea that "all men are created equal".

60% is not two thirds and Congress members, for all their faults, are generally a little smarter than the redneck majority.

I realize this. I am just commenting on the fact that our country is very intolerent in their beliefs about other lifestyles. Too many people have been swimming in the same gene pool, I guess.

The Constitution is meant to put limits on the government, not the people. this is a pretty shitty idea.

I bet Vince was the only one who voted yes. :lol

I know a few people whose justification for the "all men are created equal" thing is that gay peoplea re subhuman and therefor don't have the same rights everyone else does. Then again, these are the same guys who couldn't find Germany on a map of Deutschland.

Are you from the US? If you are, I should hope you know that in merka the majority only rules insofar as it abides by constitutional law, or, more accurately, the legal wisdom of the Supreme Court.

DOWN WITH THE GAYS :rolleyes

See the first phrase in my post. Religious morals dictating public policy is nothing new and is not prohibited by the establishment clause.

In addition, there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing sexual freedom.

And to top it off, we are discussing a possible constitutional amendment here. It doesn't have to be constitutional because the motion itself is to change the Constitution.

Gays, by definition, cannot get "married".

It is against the law.

California is having trouble enforcing their laws concerning gay marriage.

Therefore, I agree with the amendment.

I support civil unions for EVERYONE and believe that marriage should be a church function and have nothing to do with govt.

The problem is that most people, even non-church types, are into the idea of marriage, and "civil union" is a much less significant thing in their minds. To only allow heterosexual marriage would cement the popular notion that homosexuals are a lesser form of humans.

That and marriage confers more and different legal privileges than civil union does.

Personally, I'm not in favor of the whole concept of marriage; monogamy is fine, but the only ceremony two people need to be faithful to each other is a promise between the two of them. Marriage was just a license to have sex back in the days when they invented Christianity, and now its only relevance comes from its continued overemphasis by society. But oh well.

Gay bashing should never have come about in Christianity to begin with. Jesus NEVER said anything about gay people, and he NEVER wanted people to be condemned. It was the apostles, who came AFTER Jesus, that said that homosexuals were deviant. I just researched it in my bible. Jesus never said a goddamned word about gays.

Yeah, but who the hell ever listened to anything Jesus actually DID say?

Ya, but the Old Testement does mention homosexuality as a sin.

I agree. Hate the sin but love the sinner. Cast the first stone and all that.

You should have gone back further.

So? Are you a Jew? Isn't the basis for your religion the New Testament, rather than the Old?

Unless you believe the government's role is to uphold the moral edicts of a particular religion, then this issue is utterly asinine. Threatens marriage? I don't see my future marriage as threatened by this.

The amendment in question is vaguely worded as it now stands and could very well be interpreted as banning civil unions and domestic partner benefits currently provided by some states.

However, many conservatives see marriage as a states issue and so it may be quite difficult to get a federal amendment passed even if a clear majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

If you are seriously bothered by this amendment proposal, I encourage you to write to Senators and Congresspeople, esp. moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats. aclu.org and other websites make it easy to do this.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same issues that killed the Massachusetts constitutional convention (for now) come up again here. It'll come down to the matter of civil unions. Vagueness will probably be unpalatable to many, and I doubt 2/3 would endorse an amendment that explicitely allows or prohibits civil unions. An amendment would be an extreme step to deciding this matter.

On CNN they said 60% were against the idea of gay marriage but much less supported a constitutional amendment to ban it.

No. Jesus came and completed the Law. He didn't scrap it all and give us a new one. He expanded it. By your logic, "Thou shalt not kill" no longer applies to me.

Please refer to my original post in this thread. It sums up any opinions I have that are relevent to this issue.

Didn't he scrap a lot of it, though? I thought some of the rules went bye-bye along with the whole vengeful, capricious God idea.

As our underatnding of God expanded, many of the old laws were re-interpretted. The only law off the top of my head that I can remember being scrapped is the not eating pig deal.

Other than that, the rest were either given new meaning (ie sacrafices) or still kept. He still encouraged keeping the sabbath.

Not necessarily, because doing harm to one's neighbor is decried in the New Testament as well as the Old.

The second part of my post was just generally addressing the topic, not your points. I guess I should have clarified.

Hey Blanco, does that mean we should still keep menstruating women away from churches?

Yes, because there are certainly no instances of Jesus reaching out to everyone in His time. Obviously, He wants people singled out for ridicule and to be ostricized.