How STUPID is a Constitutional amendment on Gay Marriage?

Question

It appears to be a desparate act to recapture Bush's right wing base. Hopefully there are some rational adults in the House and Senate that know better than to write discrimination into the Constitution. For you to whom religion is the key issue here: what about the Americans who are agnositc? Are you going to impose your religion on them as well?

TurboWeegie. How is this sad? What business of it is yours what other adults choose to do? How are you threatened by this? And I disagree. Writing in a ban on same sex marriages IS writing in discrimination into the Constution.
And again if religion is the main reason for an objection, why should some one else's faith dictate what is moral for All Americans?
We have laws for torts and criminal actions.
Why do you care about this? Are you one of those people who would re make the world in their own image? Thankfully this is just a cynical political ploy and it won't come to fruition.

Answer 1

With three notable exceptions, I am pleased to see so many intelligent and rational arguments against the idiotic, discriminatory and deeply offensive attempts by this hateful administration and (most of) their "repugnican" allies to further divide the American people over the issue of gay marriage rights. Honestly, do we really need to pursue a Constitutional amendment to define marriage?! This is the theatre of the absurd writ large.

I am sick and bloody tired of intolerant people trying to impose their narrow-minded views on me by wielding political power and threats of Constitutional amendments. Gay marriage and flag burning are so far removed from priority issues to sane and rational -- to say nothing of tolerant -- people that I almost have to laugh at this farce. But I am not laughing, because these people are serious -- and seriously evil.

Thankfully, they will fail in their shameful efforts to divide and distract the American people from the REAL issues of the day. But that doesn't make their gross misconduct any less reprehensible. Please vote in November and remember ALL of this when you consider your ballot. We have the chance to send a message to these hateful people and to show the world at large who we are and what we stand for. So please, let's get it right this time around.

Answer 2

The 14th Amendment does give people equal protection under law. Problem is federal law does not define marriage thus giving that right to the states under the 10th amendment. Some states, as in California, define marriage as a union between man and woman while others define it as a union between two people. Whatever the law is those within the state definition are given equal protection under law but only in that state. Two gay people married in a state allowing gay marriages are protected in that state but not in California. The gay marriages that were performed in San Francisco including Rosie O'Donnell's were nullified as the mayor did not have authority to violate or override state law. Until decided by the US Supreme Court, the constitution does not allow for gay marriages to be recognized nationally.

Answer 3

For those of you who have forgotten, there is a document called the "Declaration of Independence" which states "all men are created equal".

What does equal mean? That everyone is afforded the same rights and responsibilities. Denying one group a "right" based on Christian principles is contrary to the ideals this country was founded on. It amounts to state-sponsorship of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Are some "less equal" than others simply because they don't subscribe to Old Testament doctrine? All sins, in Gods eyes, are equal. Do those who lie, are greedy, or are lazy deserve to be denied the right to marry, too?

Rights are for everyone to enjoy, or no one. The people in the "black dresses", if they read the same version of the Constitution I read, will see this as it is: an attempt to deny basic human rights based on discriminatory religious principles.

Answer 4

It's incredibly dumb. The founding fathers must be turning in their graves. Does he not know about separation of Church & State? Christians should not be emposing their religion off on anyone else. What happens if let's say the another religious voter group wanted to write an ammendment stating that killing cows was against the law because it may be a dead descendant of theirs? It's totally ridiculous. Not only this religious facet of it but should the government have their noses in what's going on in my home? Absolutely not! Passing this amendment could have some serious repercussions for our BILL OF RIGHTS. Which have been seriously eroding over the past few years.

Answer 5

It is not stupid at all when you consider the founding fathers would have never foreseen such a problem as this occurring 200+ years ago when being gay was basically a closet item.
Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman, husband and wife. You may see it as discriminatory, but many see it as finally taking out of the hands of reactionary judges, who seem to have become heavy-handed in decisions concerning religious matters. Let it be called "civil union" or by some other name by states who recognize it, but reserve marriage for what the original intention was for since earliest times.

Answer 6

I agree with Answerman in that it's simply a diversion from important issues; such as, the economy, unemployment, our border problems, the Iraq war, the price of gas, and all other really important issues.

Who the heck cares if 2 people of the same sex get married? You are not the one marrying them, so let them have equal rights. Who are they harming? Again, it's another Bush diversion.

Answer 7

It is just a diversion to try to cover up the failures of the corrupt executive branch and the congress. I hope that it never passes. The government should never try to legislated morality. That will be the downfall of the United States someday.

Answer 8

What kills me even more than trampling on "all men are created equal", and "separation of church and state", is the fact that they try to make the concession of the "civil union". As though Plessey VS Ferguson never happened- as though the Supreme Court DIDN'T rule that "separate but equal" was NOT constitutional.

Answer 9

For a party (the Republicans) that supposedly detests "big government" and government interference with private rights of individuals, a law telling the states what kind of marriages they can have or not have is sheer hypocrisy.

Answer 10

It's pretty stupid. But I will say this, if not for judicial activism, you would see this issue decided where is should be in the first place...at the state level.