Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[ItsOurTimeNow]

They're frightened...and that's a GOOD thing!

We're praying hard all this week. This is SUCH a crucial issue, as it's become more of a spiritual battle, than a physical one.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm professionally trained and licensed to read statutes. You?

So has half the RAT caucus in the Senate.

Being lawyerly is no excuse.

[lugsoul]

You are correct. They are not marriage. So how can they possibly be the "legal incidents" of marriage?

The legal incidents of marriage are exactly that - those legal rights and responsibilities that come with being married. You know full well that is exactly what it means. You are just afraid to say you want an amendment that denies those things, as well.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Civil Unions are marriage. But the different name is necessary if we are truly going to allow states to go their own way while maintaining a federal norm. It is only a matter of practicality. The harm caused to our culture will be the same. I think we should define marriage uniformly, and that just as Utah was forced to ban polygamy, we should all ban gay marriage. But I can live with state legislatures and their people deciding this issue (not the courts). The different name is only a functional issue. There is no difference.

[bluecollarman]

"yawn"

Look, if your gettin' sleepy, get up and walk around some!

[EternalVigilance]

Or do you really believe that everything the majority considers a "travesty" should be addressed by a Constitutional prohibition?

Nope.

But this travesty sure should.

And in this case, the majority is right, to the chagrin of the Left and those they have managed to brainwash with their base lies.

[goldstategop]

Its denies what things to those lawfully married?

[lugsoul]

EV - can you read? I was charged with not reading or interpreting the statute, but merely repeating "liberal propaganda." Frankly, I've never read any legal analysis of the language, but I can read the language.

It is getting cold under your rock. You should hurry back.

[carenot]

When a man leaves his kids and wife for another man, the results are devastating. The results of this may last for generations.

I suppose so. What happens when a man leaves his wife and kids for another woman?

[RKB-AFG]

I just saw John Cornyn and Trent Lott both do an excellent job speaking on behave of the amendment.

[EternalVigilance]

Gay marriage is the ultimate oxymoron.

Might even call it a double oxymoron, since they are neither gay nor married.

[lugsoul]

Now you are being obtuse again.

The amendment, as written, denies the "legal incidents" of marriage - inheritance rights, survivorship property rights, hospital visitation rights, medical consent rights, medical benefits, etc. - to those in legal partnerships which are not marriage between a man and woman. Your argument that it expressly allows legal "civil unions" as determined by the state is false, and you know it.

[johnfrink]

Oh please. "Break down the foundations of our civilization?" Honestly, that's such hyperbole it is laughable. There is nothing wrong with letting two consenting adults get married. Nothing. I'm actually secure enough in my marriage to not be threatened in the slightest bit by gays getting married. If you are not that secure in your marriage, I'm sorry for you.

[EternalVigilance]

It is getting cold under your rock. You should hurry back.

Boringly unoriginal insult...already thrown at me by your partner in the defense of the homosexual agenda.

[lugsoul]

Phones must be quiet at Keyes' office today.

[lugsoul]

That post is blatantly untrue.

[goldstategop]

Really? Then why are gays and lesbians fighting for FULL marriage if you as you maintain there is no functional difference? There is no reason to oppose the FMA if they get the same benefits and recognition in court proceedings if the only difference is in what the relationship is called. I don't think that's quite it. Marriage is an entirely different social animal and gays and lesbians know they will never be a part of it. You can't be something you're not.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

This is the web-site we're building for the next rally.

We're taking back the rainbow!!

http://www.rallyformarriage.org/

lj - pinging you here.

[tjwmason]

Frankly, I've never read any legal analysis of the language, but I can read the language.

If that is so, why do you believe that the text (following) prohibits states or the federal government from creating civil partnerships (or some similar term), and applying to those partnership such legal rights (lets call them the legal incidents) as the government concerned desires?

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'

By all means, argue that this is not a matter for the federal government, or that DoMA is sufficient (I would suggest you are wrong on both cases due to the prevalence of activist judges); but stop claiming that this prohibits any legislative body from grant legal status (short of marriage) to any gathering of persons.

I fear that I can no longer stay here, it's been jolly fun, but I have other things which I need to do at the present.

[goldstategop]

It prevents court judges from making that determination. The amendment leaves it up to the state legislature to determine to whom legal incidents can be granted as long as they do not contradict the status of whom marriage is restricted to.