2007-02-16 06:05:26 · 45 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No.
2007-02-16 06:07:07 · answer #1 · answered by somebody 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
A Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage is not only foolish, it is also cruel.
First, the only reason to consider such an amendment is that the people who argue against Gay Marriage keep losing their arguments.
Sure, Opponents of Gay Marriage will argue that "judicial activists judges" are oppressing the majority, but that doesn't make any sense.
Why would there be such a large Cabal of Judges trying to oppress us by giving 2-10% of the population a right that the rest of us enjoy. What kind of lame Cabal is that? And how do they stay on track with that conspiracy. Heck, not even the Democrats can stay on course like that.
Second, it is cruel. Opposing Gay Marriage is a personal attack on homosexuals who want to live quiet monogamous lives. We, as a society, have already decided that there is no reason to ban sexual activity. Even opponents of Gay Marriage have conceded that.
Instead, they want to take away the chance to be accepted, and respected. And when a person tries to take away a persons chances to be accepted and respected, we generally call that cruel.
2007-02-16 06:23:01 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but I'm not saying this for the reason you might think-
Whether or not you SUPPORT Gay Marriage is irrelevant.
The issue in question here is the ammending of the constitution. An ammendment against gay marriage would be the FIRST and ONLY constitutional ammendment that RESTRICTS civil rights.
That is far, far scarier than anything else.
2007-02-16 06:09:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
The amendments mostly look like a list of for protection of rights for the people. And limits to government.
1st Freedoms of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
2nd Right to bear arms September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
3rd Quartering soldiers in private homes September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
4th Searches and seizures; warrants September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
5th Due process September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
6th Rights of the accused September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
7th Right to trial by jury in civil cases September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
8th Excessive bail & fines; cruel & unusual punishment September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
9th Unenumerated rights (not listed rights) retained by the people September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
10th Powers reserved to the states or to the people September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
11th Immunity of states to foreign suits March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795
12th Revision of presidential election procedures December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804
13th Abolition of slavery January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865
14th Citizenship, state due process, state equal protection June 13, 1866 July 9, 1868
15th Racial suffrage February 26, 1869 February 3, 1870
16th Federal income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913
17th Direct election to the United States Senate May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913
18th Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by 21st amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919
19th Women's suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920
20th Term Commencement for congress (January 3) and president (January 20) March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933
21st Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment; state and local prohibition permitted February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933
22nd Limits the president to two terms March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951
23rd Representation of Washington, D.C. in Electoral College June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961
24th Suffrage and prohibition of poll taxes September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964
25th Presidential disabilities July 6, 1965 February 23, 1967
26th Age suffrage March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971
27th Variance of congressional compensation September 25, 1789 May 7, 1992[1]"
I don't see how banning anything fits in with the spirit of the ammendments thusfar.
2007-02-16 06:12:16 · answer #4 · answered by froggypjs 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes...but of a different stripe
Currently, 19 state constitutions ban gay marriage, and more such amendments are in the pipeline. Massachusetts and New Jersey allow it, and undoubtably several more will follow.
The Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide what rights can be bestowed on a gay couple that married in MA or NJ and then moved to a state that bans it. An amendment to the federal constitution may be necessary to prevent endless litigation.
Time will tell.
2007-02-16 06:13:30 · answer #5 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Marriage is NOT a constitutional issue. Marriage is an issue of churches, not governments (except for tax purposes).
Here is the first amendment to our constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice that congress is completely prohibited from interfering in religious activities
2007-02-16 06:11:27 · answer #6 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A constitutional ammendment against gay marriage would be too radical. I dont think it will ever happen because there its too controversial of a subject. If there ever is a constitutional ammendment against then it would take away rights of Americans. Personally, I don't approve of gay marriage but its not my choice.
2007-02-16 06:10:38 · answer #7 · answered by Leigh 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
i do no longer understand, yet that is, via a great way, the worst, maximum regressive substitute ever. i might possibly to declare it would not are starting to be via congress, yet i won't be in a position to truly say that for a actuality. and not that I even have lots of an argument with bill Clinton as a president, yet i think of this is particularly ironic that he's the guy who signed DOMA into regulation.
2016-10-02 06:13:13 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Gov Arnold said it best. Gay marraige is something that should be between a man and a woman. lol j/k
Seriously though... marraige traditionally is a union (usually religious) between a man and a woman. The idea of gay marraige makes no sense to me simply because it sounds like you are declaring that God approves of a homosexual relationship. However, in a land of freedom, I see no reason why gays should not be allowed equality in every way. Let them join in legally binding partnerships, but do not call it marriage, since it is not religiously recognized as acceptable. Call it whatever you want as long as their legal rights are respected.
2007-02-16 06:26:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. It violates the 14th amendment as well as the foundations the country was built upon.
Contrary to what the religious would have you believe, this country was NOT built on christian values but was actually intended to prevent christian values from interfering with government and affecting policy.
The founding fathers were primarily deists and atheists, and most of them were openly critical of christianity.
2007-02-16 06:09:56 · answer #10 · answered by Mike K 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It is not a constitutional issue. No matter what your view on the subject of gay marriage, it is not something that should be part of the constitution.
2007-02-16 06:08:21 · answer #11 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 9⤊ 1⤋