Poll: Few Favor Same-Sex Marriage (new spin,trying to say should not be part of election)

CBS POLLS ^ | 3/16/2004 | CBS

[longtermmemmory]

Doublespeak.

You have to look at this from the lens of trying to get homosexual marraige off the political radar.

They are TRYING to say that the majority do not htink this is important enought to change the constitution and those that support the amendment 57% do not think its significant to add to the constitution.

as I said, doublespeak. The numbers within the polls contradict each other.
like 59% support the amendment but 56% don't support the amendment?

Garbage in Garbage out.

[longtermmemmory]

you have to also ask why now? Why did the homosexuals and their useful idiot feel NOW was the time? They could have waited until Nov. when there would be no danger of a constitutional amendment, when democrats would have won majorities in the sate legislatures to prevent state constitutional DOMAs.

Could it be that the outster of Gray Davis sent a message of fear? Could it be their internal polling have indicated that current Republican trends will continue for the forseeable future?

The future trends are not in the homosexuals favor, they had to move now before a backlash would result. A miscalculation, but it was do or die for the homosexuals. Now their ONLY hopes lie in lying that this is a states rights issue and obsuring with appeals to looooove and feeelings.

As the Ohio Democrats said "every second this [homosexual marrige] is on the political radar, Democrats loose."

So to the homosexuals, kiss away.

[faithincowboys]

You are so ridiculous--you have been discovered. You're not very good.

[Eva]

That's how they do their polls, they keep asking questions different ways until they get the results that they want. I noticed the same thing about the Bush Kerry poll. Bush was ahead in the poll, but behind on every issue question.

[cartoonistx]

Americans did not widely support abolition either. The cultural tide cannot be turned.

If your model is to be followed, can I surmise that the Christian Right will be firing upon Fort Sumtner soon?

[Judith Anne]

I'm not yet convinced that either a ban, or legalizing it, would be consistent with the 1st. The issue cannot be divorced from the issue of free exercise of religion.

I disagree. Marriage, in addition to being a religious institution, is a contract before the government and confers primarily rights and obligations. Taking the religious aspect out of marriage, people can still be married before a judge, and it's legal.

My problem with homosexual marriage is spousal insurance benefits. Homosexual men have a much shorter life span than heterosexual men, and the potential for huge medical insurance claims is much higher in homosexuality than heterosexuality. What's to keep a homosexual man in good health from marrying, for money, a homosexual man with Hep C or HIV infection, giving him spousal health insurance coverage at a reduced group rate, and driving up the cost for heterosexuals without the same risk factors? Or what if BOTH of them are Hep C or HIV positive? What a nightmare for, say, a county employees health insurance rates. Subsidizing medical care for homosexuals by forcing heterosexuals to pay increased insurance costs is robbery.

Additionally, society has an interest in the welfare of children of a marriage. Raising children in an aberrant lifestyle is an unnecessary stressor on the children and possibly a health risk for them, considering the increased rates of STDs and even drug-resistant TB in homosexuals.

I have absolutely no tolerance for homosexual marriage whatsoever. Homosexual behavior is not an issue for me, because I ignore it in as far as possible. But when I must subsidize the increased health costs of the homosexual lifestyle, I become irate. Any marriage of homosexuals invariably leads to that.

Kerry's many tolerant positions on homosexual marriage are just one more reason to reject him as leader of the free world.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

It's unclear from your post what you think government should do, if anything. Do you think a ban is in order? I'll assume you're against legalizing same-sex marriage. How would a ban be consistent with the religious clauses of the 1st, and I'll add the 14th, though it isn't required?

The Supreme Court has for decades stated that hostility toward any religion or toward all religions is as much forbidden by the Constitution as is an official establishment of religion.

Considering there are religions on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue, how can government constitutionally take any postion on it at all? At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs.

While your post suggests a compelling governmental interest, that interest cannot be expresses in terms that are consistent with the 1st amendment. Moreover, taken at face value, they violate the equal protection clause.

You argument with regard to the welfare of children has merit. The media has been confusing the abusive priests scandal by denying that priests have often abuse teenagers, focusing instead on the very young. I've posted in other forums on FR concerning the issue if you want to find them.

More Democrats and gun-owning citizens would cast a vote for Mr. Bush if they were given ready access to Mr. Kerry's position on what he would do if elected.

[Judith Anne]

It's unclear from your post what you think government should do, if anything. Do you think a ban is in order? I'll assume you're against legalizing same-sex marriage. How would a ban be consistent with the religious clauses of the 1st, and I'll add the 14th, though it isn't required?

First of all, here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Civil marriage laws, which are the only ones I addressed in my posts, have nothing to do with religion. A man and woman can be legally married without a religious ceremony, with all the financial and legal benefits. There is no infringement on the free exercise of religion in civil marriage laws. On the other hand, a religious ceremony alone does not make a marriage according to civil law.

Homosexuals have been having their unions blessed by clergy for many years, and I have seen no interference by the state in those blessings. However, homosexuals want much more--they are not satisfied with having legal contracts to bind them and a "church" blessing. (I omit any comment concerning what I think of those "blessings.")

Instead, homosexuals want all the rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage--state sanction, church blessing, legal benefits automatically conferred by the state for married couples, including Social Security benefits, insurance benefits extended by employers, state-sanctioned right of adoption, etc.

Additionally, they don't want anyone to disagree with them, disapprove of them, tell them that according to the Judeo-Christian ethic they are sinners--they want to ban the free exercise of religion in others. It's very cunning, in my opinion. They want it established by law that no one can be prejudiced against them, even if they flout traditional Christian beliefs of the majority of churchgoers--they want religious institutions to be forced by law to accept their lifestyle with no proscription.

And any time the state tries to force me, by law, to accept homosexuality as a valid moral good, they are interfering with my free exercize of religion.

Additionally, homosexuals themselves hardly have a good opinion of heterosexuals--we are referred to by the homosexuals as "breeders," among the least of the epithets.

So, I hope you have your answer as to the first amendment question. And if homosexuals are going to tie up the courts for years at uncounted cost to the states, then by all means let's just get a constitutional amendment and stop this nonsense.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

So, I hope you have your answer as to the first amendment question.

Actually, no, you didn't answer the question:How would a ban be consistent with the religious clauses of the 1st, and I'll add the 14th, though it isn't required?

I think we can agree that there are religions that believe same-sex marriage is wrong. There are also religions that say they are OK. The Methodists have split into groups on the issue. One group--the Reconciling (Methodists) believes same-sex marriage is OK.

I'll repeat myself: The Supreme Court has for decades stated that hostility toward any religion or toward all religions is as much forbidden by the Constitution as is an official establishment of religion.

You agree in part with the Court:And any time the state tries to force me, by law, to accept homosexuality as a valid moral good, they are interfering with my free exercize of religion.

For the sake of argument, though you may disagree with the Reconciling or whatever religious group that says same-sex marriage is OK, what would be your take on their position--would they believe you are interfering with their free exercize of religion if you asked gov't to ban same-sex marriages?

I think we can agree that marriage is very much a part of religions. It is also a part of culture apart from religion. Yet we have the 1st Amendment. For the majority to tell gov't to ban same-sex marriages would be for gov't to endorse the religion that is against same-sex marriages, while simultaneously gov't would be coming out against the religion that says it is OK.

Am I to understand that you believe gov't can ban same-sex marriages with that in mind?

[Judith Anne]

Sorry, whitey, you're running this into the ground with me. Maybe one of your other debate pals has time for this nonsense. I don't.

The question was answered. If you want to ignore it, fine.
If you want to read something else into it, fine. If you have some nuanced objection, fine. Take it up with somebody who will put up with your repetitious and monumentally nitpicking constitution-parsing empty rhetoric.

Are you being insulted here? Yes.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

I'll take your response to mean you would rather talk about worshipping on the mountain.

[Judith Anne]

You may take it however you please, but I don't know your context for "worshipping on the mountain."

[WhiteyAppleseed]

The mountains have labored and brought forth a mouse. I fear going into it further with you. Perhaps you could tell me if you believe the individual's freedom of conscience as the central liberty that unifies the various Clauses in the First Amendment?