If American Christians should succeed in amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, do you think...?

Question

...they'd be happy with that? Or do you think they'd next try to force gay people into 'treatment' to 'cure' their homosexuality, like they tried to force Michael Schiavo to keep his wife 'alive'?

To what extremes do you think fundamentalists would go in regards to gays?

You're right, Mr. Taco. I should have corrected the header of the question in my details to specify that I meant fundamentalists. But I'm scatterbrained. My fault :)

Oops. I forgot to add that I *always* vote :)

Ummm, what planet do you live on, j h??

Consenting adults, Searcher. Why do anti-gay bigots pretend they don't know that's a given? Plenty of laws are already in place against sex with minors, and you know that.

Answer 1

Give them an inch, they'll take a Constitution.

Answer 2

First off, the Supreme Court cannot Amend the Constitution. To Amend the Constitution, Congress must draft a new Amendment and then pass it through both the House and Senate with a 2/3 vote. After that, the Amendment is passed to the states and 2/3s of the states must ratify the Amendment. Once the states ratify the Amendment, it becomes part of our Constitution. And once there, even the Supreme Court could not overturn it. If the Federal government AND State governments passed and ratified an Amendment to the United States Constitution banning gay marriage, it would be banned regardless of State Constitutions since Federal law will always supersede State law except when State law is stricter than Federal law (IE, if Federal law says the legal drinking age is 21 and a state says 25, the state law will go above Federal. But no state can set a drinking age below 21). Also, California's Constitution does not permit gay marriage, nor does it ban gay marriage. But Californian citizens will soon be voting on an Amendment to their state Constitution to ban gay marriage in California.

Answer 3

Seems to me there is no ban on gay marriage, there is only a definition of what constitutes a marriage ... between a woman and a man.

I'm a Christian, don't have a problem with it, but feel that gay couples who have been together for any length of time should have a legal bond so they can get some of the benefits married folk do, like insurance from an employer, tax benefits, etc.

And no, I don't want to force gay people into treatment, unless first we force all the gamblers / drug addicts / alcoholics / slovenly's / hypocrites into "treatment" too lol

Answer 4

Two things:

1. You are stereotyping American Christians. I happen to be an American Christian, and I don't support an amendment to ban gay marriage whatsoever.

2. The ones that DO support it would not stop at that if they could get away with it. How far would they go? As far as the rest of us let them. That's why it is so important to vote. More right-wing supporters vote, and that is why this is even an issue. Think about this when election day comes around.

Answer 5

I would flee the country as quickly as humanly possible as it would no longer be america.
Don't get me started on what I think of gays not being able to marry. They can take thier Bible and shove it. Not everyone followed thier book. And we shouldn't have to. And don't start on how I'm "talking bad about the ten commandments". Christians ripped those off too. Read the Book of the Dead for enlightenment.

Answer 6

As a gay man I cannot understand why Christians make such a big deal out of homosexuality. There are fewer than a dozen passages ambiguously alluding toward homosexuality, hundreds of parables addressing the Golden Rule, and thousands of other passages. Why do some American Christians make such a big deal out of a tiny fraction? Sounds like latent homosexuality in a way, but they are so not gay--no sense of style or selfless compassion--it cannot be that.

Because scapegoating minorities and weaker people has always been a successful strategy for advancing one's cause.

Answer 7

Adolf Hitler ring a bell? These fundementalists, although not all apply, as some just ignor the idea, would probably go as far as to ban cohabitation of homosexuals, meaning more than one homosexual cannot stay in the same living area permanantly. They can't really go too much further than that, otherwise it would be dubbed inhumane.

Answer 8

You mean the Michael Schiavo who neglected to get Terri proper therapy (which several experts said would have helped her), wouldn't allow her to receive sacraments from a priest, and then allowed her to starve to death -- all while shacking up with another woman with whom he had two kids?

And don't forget the financial motives he had to hasten his wife's death.

As for gays marrying -- they already have equal rights to marry. They have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do.

But equal marriage rights is not what they are pushing for. They're pushing for a change in the definition of marriage to suit their "alternative" lifestyle.

And why do we even need a constitutional ban on something that the Constitution doesn't even talk about anyway?
..

Answer 9

I'd like to apologize to anyone who's ever come in contact with a fundamentalist christian....its really horrible to be steeped in that...trust me I grew up as one...thankfully i've recovered! And honestly I really don't see them just stopping on banning gay marriages. Perhaps that is the most legal action they will take, but in their communities you bet your *** they'll be parading around with signs or trying to pull in "the lost" until all the world knows how to bash a bible over someone's head. Seriously though, its like coming out of a brainwashing.

Answer 10

How far would they go? Probably not as far as they go in Islamic nations. In Islamic nations, homosexuals are executed. You should be thanking God you live here instead of there.

They want gay marriage banned because gay marriage ruins lives, and it ruins a society.

Look at the statistics. Gay people are more likely to get sick, more likely to miss work, and less likely to live as long. They are simply less productive in society than heterosexuals. It's a scientific fact, and just because it's not politically correct to say so, doesn't mean the facts will go away. Deal with it.

Answer 11

I think their will always be some one pissed off about one thing. I dont care what era ur in some always going to bitc@ about something. Time will only tell, but ur grouping of it all being christians sounds like ignorance, u forget their are many people who hate gays and those who u wouldnt expect to support them.