Phantom Limb

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?

__________________

Last.Fm

My Bomb Music Shit

anticipation

If DOMA is constitutional, and the "sanctity" of marriage that thousands of years of jurisprudence and human experience have defined and protected for thousands of years is indeed constitutional, then why would he enact an amendment? Seems a bit contradictory to add a definition that fits his idea of marriage if it is already supported by current legislation, or so he claims.

hip hop bunny hop

talked about that in this thread, beginning roughly at that page

As I'd rather not make an assumption, could you restate the underlined?

Anyways, basically to prevent the Supreme Court from intervening on behalf of the opposing side. 30 states have banned gay marriage (and have not had the legislation/amendments overturned by the courts), and there's no way a law forcing gay marriage on the country could ever make it through congress. So the only way left for the opposing side is via the Supreme Court.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

anticipation

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

This was Bush's justification for why a constitutional amendment was necessary that restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples. However he never followed through with his support by lobbying for an amendment to actually take shape because at the time most senators believed that any DOMA could withstand any constitutional challenge.

hip hop bunny hop

I still have no idea why you're bringing up DOMA when discussing an amendment which would prohibit state benefits for marriage being conferred to same-sex couples.

Yeah, sure, you could argue that DOMA is contrary to the Full Faith & Credit Clause; but how is that relevant in regards to the proposed amendment?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

anticipation

Considering that DOMA is a law that defines what marriage essentially is on a federal level, any amendment that would regulate and impose federal mandate over state law has obvious relevance. If a state deems the union of a same-sex couple as valid and worthy of benefits then the implementation of any amendment would be a states rights issue. Currently the few states that recognize same-sex domestic partnerships also confer most of the same rights to those unions that opposite-sex couples enjoy, so the idea that an amendment would eliminate these rights would set a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If the federal government can override matters that have been traditionally restricted to state constitutions and jurisdiction, how exactly does that support the idea of a democratic process or states rights?

hip hop bunny hop

I disagree with your reading of DOMA; the practical effect of DOMA is that when "State X" calls a couple married, and said couple moves to "State Y", the latter has the right to not recognize that marriage, which is perfectly reasonable once you recall that recognizing it means granting pay outs.

Anyways, yeah, Romney is not a states-rights guy. Neither is Obama. Both are intent on forcing their views on this subject (and many others) on the entire nation, and in far too many cases they seek to force their views on other nations.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

anticipation

link

So yeah, not too sure how you can disagree with my "reading" when the text literally states what I'm saying. But I digress, and I do agree that the practical applications of the law are pretty reasonable. The idea that a state would have to honor another's stipulations simply because the former's high court deems it to be valid doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It would seem that the nation would only have universal recognition of gay marriage through entirely new legislation, which would surely fail miserably in Congress.

The Batlord

Dude, I think your'e a racist and a homophobe (hell, you've even admitted to being a homophobe). Why would I care that you don't think they're racist or homophobic. My criteria for being racist and homophobic aren't gonna mater to you anyway, so I don't really feel like banging my head against a wall. But just so you can't say I'm running away from the argument, I say this just once:

I think many Republicans (and by Republicans, I mean the politicians and the people who vote for them) are racist and homophobic, because matter no how well they justify their feelings on immigration and welfare and gay marriage, I can hear the contempt for whatever minority they're talking about in their voices. Whether it's a politician, or Rush Limbaugh, or my family, or my friend's alcoholic best friend, or my other friend's ignorant girlfriend, they all sound the same.

__________________

cledussnow

That is a big joke.

You making a blanket statement concerning "many of" any group is as ignorant as racism itself.

I HATE freeloaders who have been living off taxpayers' earnings for generations. Can you hear MY contempt?

I HATE the way the government restricts our rights in the name of "national security" yet our Southern border is "secured" worse than a 7/11. More contempt escaping?