When will you start campaigning to change the Constitution to prevent people from worshipping other gods?
2007-05-13 05:17:44 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You have misunderstood the intentions of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution requires that any license or contract made in one state is good in all other states. That means that a gay marriage that happens in Massachusetts must be recognized by all 50 states. That also means that activist judges in one state can determine who can be married in all 50 states.
What the DOMA tries to do is to prevent one state from defining marriage for every other state (refer to Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, when he mentions the "tyranny of the minority"). The only way to prevent this from happening is to have a constitutional definition which will apply to all the states.
ALSO: DOMA was introduced by Bill Clinton, a liberal democrat. Take it up with him.
2007-05-13 05:24:03 · answer #1 · answered by kncvb21345 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Me, Myself & Aye — *parts* of Texas are extremely bigoted. I'm a liberal (living in Texas) and some parts are so ultra-conservative (and infested with KKK members) that I carry a concealed handgun when I travel through those areas. US79 and SR21 are excellent shortcuts for getting through the state quickly, but if you're not an ultra-conservative they are not particularly safe. Other parts of Texas are quite liberal. Austin, where I live, is very liberal: we're sort of the "San Francisco of the South". San Marcos is also liberal. Dallas (proper) tends liberal, especially in Oak Lawn and Oak Hill, though the northern suburbs are extremely conservative. Parts of Houston, particularly around Montrose, are liberal. Back to the original question: the Constitution of the State of Texas is a poorly-written albatross which requires almost continuous Constitutional amendment just to make routine changes in how the state is managed. Eventually, a new state Constitution will be written and hopefully people will have more sense and take out silly laws like these. If Obama is elected President and starts appointing liberal Supreme Court judges, I'm sure the anti-gay marriage laws in states will be overturned eventually, and Texas will be led kicking and screaming into the 20th century at the time the rest of the country prepares for the 22nd century.
2016-05-17 07:27:14 · answer #2 · answered by margareta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, for two reasons.
One, that's not the sort of thing the Constitution is intended for.
Two, marriage licenses are issued by states, so that decision should be made at the state level (like many, many other decisions that have been usurped by the federal government, but that's another post).
Also, to your comment about "worshipping other gods" - the Constitution already addresses that, and I have absolutely no problem with the way in which it does so.
2007-05-13 05:28:14 · answer #3 · answered by JohnD 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The USA has always had a majority rule. If something is on the ballot, It is voted on, The winner is the one with the most votes. The nation speaks that way--in fair and open voting. How can anyone blame Religion for people voting their convictions. Are you going to change the system in order to accomplish your goal? Worshiping others God is a personal decision that has nothing to do with government. Why would we object to freedom of religion.
2007-05-13 05:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by j.wisdom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To the chef who's saying "Stereotype alert!": I have to say first of all that I appreciate your tolerant attitude, and that you do Christians a service by coming on here and challenging the stereotype by saying what you've said. But you have to admit that the official position of most "Christian" denominations is that homosexuality is a "sin." Gay people have a right, I daresay, to wax irritated at people trying to deny them civil rights in secular society based on a few cherry-picked religious texts.
It seems to me that in America, in which we're all supposed to have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others or violate the law, that productive, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who happen to be gay should be able to enjoy the same kinds of rights that their hetero counterparts do. I simply cannot understand why people spend so much time and energy lobbying for something that does not affect them in any way whatsoever.
It ought to go without saying that the only reason we're even discussing butchering the Constitution in this reprehensible manner is that it's a great way for the GOP to rally its wingnut base. Everybody knows it's never gonna happen.
2007-05-13 05:27:30 · answer #5 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i wasn't aware that the constitution even mentioned anything about gay marriage. i could care less if a couple of guys want to get married. i do, however, worry about the children who would be involved, and i'm sure any gay person who has ever been persecuted (and i would venture to say that is the overwhelming majority of gay people) could understand my reasoning. why would you want to raise up a kid, knowing full well what that kid would have to face at school everyday once the other kids in class found out he had gay guardians?
2007-05-13 05:33:48 · answer #6 · answered by That Guy Drew 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
to me, Marriage is one husband and one wife... male and female. honestly, if gay couples want a 'union'... fine! just call it something else as it isnt marriage in my book...
the 'american constitution' is about keeping government out of my religion.... not the other way around. plenty of people in america worship things other than God, including position, money, 'things' and even other gods than the One that I worship...
2007-05-13 05:45:35 · answer #7 · answered by livinintheword † 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Stereotype alert! Stereotype alert!
I'm a Christian. I'm an American. I don't want to change the Constitution. I could care less if gays get married. No desire to prevent people from worshipping whatever they want, either. Be my guest!
2007-05-13 05:21:19 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 9⤊ 1⤋
No. I think it would be a pretty sad state of affairs if we HAD to make laws against it. It would be like outlawing divorce, or adultery.
Personally, even though I'm a Christian, I don't think religion should have any bearing on laws. Theocracies are a BAD IDEA.
2007-05-13 05:46:05 · answer #9 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Marriage isn't in the constitution and shouldn't be there, except as ALREADY mandated that STATES must accept the FORMALIZATION and LEGITIMACY of things empowered by other states.
In other words if Kentucky allows a 12 year old girl to marry a 60 year old man, Oregon and New York have to accept that marriage.
Under our CURRENT LAWS
Like it or not, if a 60 year old man from Afghanistan comes to Disney World in Orlando with is 4 year old bride, they have to accept that as legal under US mandate.
They have to give them a room together. They have to let them sleep in the same bed. They have to let be naked if they so choose to be naked.
Because in Afghanistan it is legal to marry a 4 year old girl.
2007-05-13 05:30:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋