Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/12/2005 11:43:39 AM

fillepink

Posts: 124
Status: offline

prior to his election, Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U S Comstitution that would ban gay marriages. that proposal is still moving.

apart from banning gay marriage throughout the United States, in my opinion, the effect of such an amendment would be to render gay people second class citizens. they would have uncertain rights as to housing, employment, adoption, inheritance, end of life decisions and other highly important matters. it would render gay people almost helpless in the face of discrimination of any kind based on sexual orientation and might cause defects to arise in hate crime legislation.

no community should rise up in opposition to this proposed amendment with greater force than O/ours...gay people have always been an integral and honored part of the BDSM community. the organization i belong to opposing the proposed amendment is the Human Rights Campaign; i urge E/everyone to contact them and offer whatever support, verbal or monetary, Y/you can. additionally; i urge Y/you to contact Y/your representatives and senators and express Y/your opposition to this proposed amendment. if Y/you need help with contact information, feel free to email me.

in my opinion, this is nothing less than an attempt to codify hatred; something that has never been done in this country before on a constitutional level. W/we should not sit idly by while evil people are actively attempting to harm a part of O/our community. as a wise man said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/12/2005 12:00:39 PM

Raphael

Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fillepink

prior to his election, Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U S Comstitution that would ban gay marriages. that proposal is still moving.

Fortunately the founders set a very high bar for constitutional amendments, however. I don't think this thing has any chance of passing at any point in the near future. It was just a cynical political ploy to mobilise a certain faction to get out and vote for Bush.

There are a lot of much more pressing worries right now, in my opinion. Why get distracted from fighting them by some idle talk? Before this thing is serious, it has to pass by a 2/3rds majority in both the house and senate, or else 2/3rds of the state legislatures have to call for a constitutional convention on the subject.

quote:

and might cause defects to arise in hate crime legislation.

I'm sorry, that line really cracked me up though.

(in reply to fillepink)

Post #: 2

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/12/2005 12:25:11 PM

fillepink

Posts: 124
Status: offline

i have not researched the passage of constitutional amendments so i cannot argue; though i do not recall it as the prior writer states. i think the proposed amendment is more than "idle talk". Hate speech is dangerous; especially when it comes from a president. again, i urge P/pl to be motivated enough to at least write their congressional leaders.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Raphael)

Post #: 3

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/12/2005 12:49:22 PM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

At least 19 of the 50 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. And more of them are planning to do so.

There is a good chance that Bush's proposal could be enacted.

(in reply to fillepink)

Post #: 4

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/12/2005 1:32:24 PM

Raphael

Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fillepink
i have not researched the passage of constitutional amendments so i cannot argue; though i do not recall it as the prior writer states.

Article 5

First either 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate have to propose it, OR 2/3rds of the State Legislatures have to ask for a Convention on the matter.

THEN 3/4 States have to approve it, before it becomes law.

The real danger here is in your statehouse. By the time this thing had enough support to become a constitutional amendment, it would first have to have the support to become law in three out of 4 states - that's 38 States.

Stop it in just 13 states, and the amendment is dead.

At the present time, it's not even cleared the first hurdle, and looks to have no chance to do so - let alone the second.

(in reply to fillepink)

Post #: 5

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/12/2005 2:18:30 PM

fillepink

Posts: 124
Status: offline

this is the actual amendment:

Article V: Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one mode or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Raphael)

Post #: 6

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/13/2005 7:28:07 AM

ShiftedJewel

Posts: 2492
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

At least 19 of the 50 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. And more of them are planning to do so.

There is a good chance that Bush's proposal could be enacted.

I totally agree. And people are sitting on their hands doing nothing to stop it because they don't see the problem with it. Most will sit there and say, well, we can have civil unions and that'll keep 'em happy.....

How many people understand that this same constitutional amendment will also effect the senior citizens? I read about it on the ACLU site, will try to find it again, or maybe someone here can help me out?

Jewel

_____________________________

Don't ask, trust me, you won't like the answer... no one ever does.

(in reply to onceburned)

Post #: 7

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/13/2005 9:49:46 AM

fillepink

Posts: 124
Status: offline

i'm amazed at the apparent apathy to this issue...especially from gay and lesbian people. did i post this thread in the wrong place? fillepink

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ShiftedJewel)

Post #: 8

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/13/2005 10:31:44 AM

Davesgirl

Posts: 89
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline

Hello everyone.

WHile I may be bisexual, my preference for a life companion is a Man, my Master. Regardless, I have a very good friend who is lesbian. And, my brother is gay, in a comitted lifelong relationship. I did a bit of searching, and think I found the page someone earlier asked about. Heres the link:

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightslist.cfm?c=278

I, too, am afraid of writing discrimination into the foundation for our country, which is, IMO, what the president is wanting to do.

(in reply to fillepink)

Post #: 9

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/13/2005 11:20:24 AM

ShiftedJewel

Posts: 2492
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

Thank you sooooooooo much for finding that for me Davesgirl!!

"Moreover, in many states, unmarried persons--including unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples, and even unrelated clergy members--have the same rights as married persons to jointly adopt or jointly provide foster care or kinship care to persons in need. These unmarried persons are providing loving and secure homes to countless children. By barring states from extending any “legal incidents” of marriage to unmarried persons, the amendment could take away every legal right and protection that states now provide to many American families.

The amendment could also destroy a wide range of other rights that are important to the lives of unmarried persons. Those legal protections may include state and local civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on “marital status,” state laws protecting unmarried elderly couples who refrain from marrying in order to hold on to their all too menial pensions, and even state laws allowing a person, in the absence of a spouse, to oppose the autopsy of a close friend because of the deceased person’s religious beliefs."
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15175&c=101

This is just part of the reason that EVERYONE should oppose that ban. It has nothing to do with the morality of same-sex marriage, the Bible, religious beliefs or personal beliefs, it's about discrimination, plain and simple. The whole thing is worth reading.

Jewel

_____________________________

Don't ask, trust me, you won't like the answer... no one ever does.

(in reply to Davesgirl)

Post #: 10

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 12:17:29 PM

temptation

Posts: 111
Joined: 2/20/2004
From: heaven
Status: offline

I would put gay marriage under the pursuit of personal happiness, as marriage is an event in the mutual happiness of a couple.

banning it, or preventing the pursuit of happiness is unconstitutional in itself, and more so, proposing the ban becuase of church doctorate, while church and state are supposed to be seperate is doubly so.

makes me angry.

(in reply to ShiftedJewel)

Post #: 11

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 12:44:28 PM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: temptation
banning it, or preventing the pursuit of happiness is unconstitutional in itself, and more so, proposing the ban becuase of church doctorate, while church and state are supposed to be seperate is doubly so.

I hope I do not come across as picky but the phrase "pursuit of happiness" does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It does appear, famously, in the Declaration of Independence.

Similarly, the doctrine of separation of Church and State does not appear in the Contitution or any of its amendments. It is a legal tradition which has developed via judicial rulings over the past 200 years.

I agree with you that Bush's proposed amendment is un-ethical and contrary to the values of our country. But if we are to successfully engage supporters of his proposal in debate, we need to avoid making erroneous statements and claims.

< Message edited by onceburned -- 6/14/2005 12:46:11 PM >

(in reply to temptation)

Post #: 12

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 12:44:47 PM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

First, this is not about hatred or bigotry. Those are labels that are flung around by activists and not only are they completely useless and false, they are spewed out of hatred and bigotry themselves. A bit of a faux pas you might say.

Second, it does not matter a righteous damn whether Bush wants homosexual marriage or not. Bush is a puppet. He is a spokesperson for the government and nothing more. The way the US government is set up, NOTHING can be done by the voice of the President alone and for very good reason. The senate holds the reigns of power. The senate tells the President what he will or will not be doing. There was no more stark example of this than the recent Iraqi war.

Third, this seperation of Church and State crap is nothing more than that. Crap. The Constitutional Amendment was written not to keep the Church out of the State, but the State out of the Church. It was designed to prevent the State from legislating and controlling the affairs of the Church, such that the Church could operate freely and without hinderance.

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 6/14/2005 12:47:34 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to temptation)

Post #: 13

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 12:53:36 PM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
The way the US government is set up, NOTHING can be done by the voice of the President alone and for very good reason. The senate holds the reigns of power. The senate tells the President what he will or will not be doing. There was no more stark example of this than the recent Iraqi war.

The idea of separation of powers and balance between the three branches of government is a sound doctrine. But to say that the Executive Branch, headed by the President, is simply a puppet seems to ignore the very real leadership role that the President plays. The example of the war in Iraq supports the power of the President - the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq if it were not for Bush.

quote:

Third, this seperation of Church and State crap is nothing more than that. Crap. The Constitutional Amendment was written not to keep the Church out of the State, but the State out of the Church.

That is a rather interesting interpretation. I do not recall ever hearing it before. Could you suggest an article on the web which supports this viewpoint?

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 14

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 1:07:47 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Do they have a doctrine of separation (that's SEPARATION, not "seperation") of Church and State in Canada? I honestly don't know. So maybe in Canada it really is crap.

In the U.S., it's not crap.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Third, this seperation of Church and State crap is nothing more than that. Crap.

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 15

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 1:14:36 PM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

Discrimination is wrong. Doesn't matter if it is sexual, age, religious etc.
To support such a move, would be nailing ones own coffin shut and allowing someone to padlock it.
Support such discrimination at the risk of eventually losing your rights in the long run.

Peace and Love

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to fillepink)

Post #: 16

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 2:26:40 PM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

quote:

Third, this seperation of Church and State crap is nothing more than that. Crap. The Constitutional Amendment was written not to keep the Church out of the State, but the State out of the Church.

That is a rather interesting interpretation. I do not recall ever hearing it before. Could you suggest an article on the web which supports this viewpoint?

I did a whole lengthy writeup on it once after some fairly exhaustive research on the matter. However, it is long since lost on another messageboard. I do remember this following article being one that I stumbled across that somewhat sums up what I presented in My own article, but I had gone into much more depth with Jefferson's position and relationship with the Church.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Edit: Here is another one

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 6/14/2005 2:30:17 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to onceburned)

Post #: 17

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 2:27:52 PM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Do they have a doctrine of separation (that's SEPARATION, not "seperation") of Church and State in Canada? I honestly don't know. So maybe in Canada it really is crap.

In the U.S., it's not crap.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Third, this seperation of Church and State crap is nothing more than that. Crap.

You are right. It is your interpretation of it that is crap. I digress.

*spelling error fixed for Lordandspellingnazi

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 6/14/2005 2:36:11 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 18

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 2:47:04 PM

Ssilver

Posts: 53
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Second, it does not matter a righteous damn whether Bush wants homosexual marriage or not. Bush is a puppet. He is a spokesperson for the government and nothing more. The way the US government is set up, NOTHING can be done by the voice of the President alone and for very good reason. The senate holds the reigns of power. The senate tells the President what he will or will not be doing. There was no more stark example of this than the recent Iraqi war.

You're a crackhead, right? Or you're writing spoofs?

You think the US Senate was the major cause of the invasion of Iraq, and not White House policy? That analysis right there pretty much speaks to the fact that you must have taken the short yellow bus to school when you were a kid.

_____________________________

www.akashaweb.com

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 19

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage - 6/14/2005 4:14:22 PM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Second, it does not matter a righteous damn whether Bush wants homosexual marriage or not. Bush is a puppet. He is a spokesperson for the government and nothing more. The way the US government is set up, NOTHING can be done by the voice of the President alone and for very good reason. The senate holds the reigns of power. The senate tells the President what he will or will not be doing. There was no more stark example of this than the recent Iraqi war.

You're a crackhead, right? Or you're writing spoofs?

You think the US Senate was the major cause of the invasion of Iraq, and not White House policy? That analysis right there pretty much speaks to the fact that you must have taken the short yellow bus to school when you were a kid.

your insults are nothing short of childish. Funny seeing you reprimand Me and insult My intelligence when you display such an incredible lack of intelligence and integrity yourself.

Learn how the tiers of government work before you speak to avoid looking foolish. Bush HAD to get senate approval before going to war. That is the way it works ever since the Senate's inception in 1787, but most notibly since 1973 (spawned by concerns over the President's power to interject in foreign affairs. Most notably with China and Cuba). The idea was that no president, nor the Executive Branch as a whole, should have the power to make any autocratic decisions including that of marching the country into war. In other words, it does not matter WHAT Whitehouse policy is.. No senate approval... No deal. End of discussion.

Sheesh. I know these things and I am not even a US citizen. How pathetic.

Here... Learn how the Senate and Congress works, and their role in declaring war, so that you do not look so foolish on the next round.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/usgovt/legis/histosen.htm

quote:

Senate concern over increased presidential powers in foreign affairs led to the passage of the War Powers Act of 1973, requiring Congressional notification and approval whenever American troops are sent into combat.

Holy damn. I mean... Really.

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 6/14/2005 4:18:59 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to Ssilver)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.098