Posted on 03/11/2004 8:41:26 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
John F. Kerry is keeping a low profile in the gay marriage debate back in Massachusetts, but he has been far from silent about the issue on the presidential campaign trail, talking about it as a way of denouncing President Bush as a divisive leader.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I'm no fan of gay marriage but "federal benefits" have been used to destroy state's rights for too long. Maybe we should address the problem of federal government granting privileges to assume power/control over local issues instead of granting more federal power.
Leaving the question of a constitutional amendment aside, the combination of opposing homosexual marriage and supporting civil unions that provide the same legal, financial and partnership benefits that married couples receive sits poorly with me.
It's as if the word "marriage" is worth protecting, but the institution of marriage is not. Aaaargh.
What Bible is he reading from?????I'd sure like to see those clauses that "go both ways".
Man, this guy makes Clinton look honest.
Vermont -- the legislature calls it "civil union."
California -- illegal action by Mayor of SF, trying to merge the legal rights conferred to "civil union" with the word "marriage."
Mass -- Court has found it can order the legislature around in order to change matters of social policy, and the people permit it.
The only state that has actually acted by legislation (not court-ordered shotgun legislation) is California and their domestic partner laws, but that was after the people of California voted 2 to 1 to define marriage as one man/one woman.
Neat bit of history, thanks.
I full understand that there are financial and tax matters wrapped up in how we structure our society. But the observation I am making is that society is permitting certain rights to same sex couples (e.g., adoption) that will have profound consequences. And somehow, calling the "civil unions" instead of "marriage" is sufficient to prevent the change. It'd be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
Horse is out of the barn, now. Even the GOP is for civil unions. Homosexual conduct meets with social approval. Homosexual couples can adopt and raise children. As time goes on, the substantive differences between civil unin and marriage will be reduced. Sure, we can protect the word "marriage" via a Constitutional amendment. But what good is the word, if the institution is undermined?
This was newgeezers take also. Yes there seems to be issue with how much power the state still has. I think they still get to pick their state bird. How it should be is a different matter. Since we are talking about states having the right to block federal benefits to individuals/"families". I think we need an ammendment or some other thing to equalize that part of the playing field.
If a civil union couple adopts a child, do they have to give up the child when they move to a non-civil-union state?
We still need the FMA to stop unions at the borders and keep them out of federal court and legislature.
I'm not against a FMA, I just don't believe it fixes any of the problems. See my other comments for the social ramifications of normalizing homosexual families, regardless of whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union." Also, judges have ways to circumvent what at a glance appears to be clear constitutional language. No sweat keeping the mitts of the word "marriage," we'll just decree that all couples, homosexual included, are entitled to the same benefits as "married" mixed-sex couples.
What Happens In Massachusetts Will Impact You! The pending legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will impact not only the citizens of that state but every person in the United States. The legalization of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts will help destroy all legal protections of traditional marriage in every state. Homosexuals will demand that laws be passed that criminalize any criticism of homosexuality; children will be taught that homosexuality is normal, natural, and a civil right. Pastors who refuse to marry same-sex couples could be threatened with lawsuits. Organizations opposing homosexuality could be threatened as well for expressing opposition to a practice that is considered "legal" in Massachusetts. And, this will open up a push for the legalization of polygamy and polyandry (any groupings of individuals who wish to get "married.")
In addition, homosexuals will freely recruit your children into a lifestyle that is rife with sexually transmitted diseases, drug abuse, alcoholism, and emotional problems.
Yes it is a demonic lifestyle/deathstyle. I've been reading about their violence they commit against each other. They are so spiritually messed up they are just short of living in tombs, pining away and cutting themselves with shards of a broken pot. Mark something something.
We would be a better country and a better culture if we decided nationwide that civil unions and marriage for unnature unions was a bad thing and unlawful. To insert some truth that the media avoids, no state has yet disagreed with that principle without being forced by judicial activists. So the biggest issue right now is the judicial threat. Our culture still defines marriage in the traditional/natural way. It's the judges who do not. We must restore republican government where legislatures make laws and not courts.
Santa and Mrs. Claus are bisexual swingers? And how'd they get in the Bible?
My impression is that the GOP has not come out clearly one way or the other, but George Bush has hinted at accepting some form of civil union as a matter of principle.
Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage (washingtonpost.com)
"Bush said he wants to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman but allow state legislatures to determine whether same-sex couples should receive various benefits, a formula that apparently would allow the kind of civil unions and domestic partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California."
But at the point where the majority of a state favors that sort of thing, will denying them make a difference?
I'm not sure what you mean by "will it make a difference?" As a matter of impacting social structure, I happen to believe that accepting same-sex family structure will make a profound difference, and it's a difference that I object to. As a matter of preventing the change (being able to "make a difference" and prevent the change), I am pessimistic. As I said, the horse is out of the barn, and the social change that I object to will happen over time.
Our culture still defines marriage in the traditional/natural way. It's the judges who do not.
Most of us define mariiage in the traditional way, and few of us assert objections to allowing same-sex couples to raise children. It's not just the judges, although I do agree, the judical activists are spearheading the matter, and causing a confrontation.
We must restore republican government where legislatures make laws and not courts.
I certainly support that objective. I'm skeptical that a constitutional amendment will cause that result.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.