Gay Marriage Ban Predictions

[gekko513]

Disregarding your own view on the proposal. Do you think this change to the constitution will be made? Why? Why not? What political steps must be made to make the change?

I would like to know your predictions on this because I'm norwegian and don't have the same big picture of the political landscape in the U.S. as some of you. I'm also gay and worried that a ban in the U.S. will have a world-wide negative effect on people's and politicians' views on gays.

[zimv20]

at this point, i don't think bush is all that serious about amending the constitution. i think the issue was brought up as a polarizing device for the election.

should bush remain in office and the movement gain ground, who knows?

public opinion polls show the US public is fairly split on how they feel about gay marriage. i suspect there will soon be polls gauging how the public feels about going so far as to amending the constitution.

of course, all it will take is another terrorist attack for americans to sit up and say, "what the heck are we arguing about THIS for?"

[3rdpath]

there's not a snowball's chance this proposed amendment will pass.

i think bush knows this( or at least his advisors do...).

what a shame to use the constitution and the threat of an amendment as a political ploy/discriminatory tool.

talk about soiling the carpet of the oval office... :rolleyes:

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by gekko513
Disregarding your own view on the proposal. Do you think this change to the constitution will be made?
It's unlikely to make its way through Congress, let alone ratification. A running tally of Senate stances can be found here (http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html#107772059078594254).

To begin the ratification process, a proposed amendment needs the approval of 2/3 of both houses. With 44 already against, at least for now it's a non-starter.

[Neserk]

I think there is a slim possiblity it will be passed. If it is passed it will be overturned by another amendment in the near future!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Neserk
I think there is a slim possiblity it will be passed. If it is passed it will be overturned by another amendment in the near future!

assuming gays are still allowed to vote...

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by Neserk
I think there is a slim possiblity it will be passed. If it is passed it will be overturned by another amendment in the near future!

It it comes to be a real possibility, it won't be in this round. A court decision finding DOMA unconstitutional would make the amendment more of a real threat, though.

Ideally, such a challenge won't make its way up the ladder and DOMA will quietly be undone in Congress after enough states have gone through the motions locally, realized it ain't gonna fly, and allowed the inevitable to happen.

[Desertrat]

Seems to me that Senate support for such an amendment would generate way too much bad publicity about prejudice--and rightly so. I don't think it has the chance of a snowball in hell of getting serious debate.

'Rat

[kettle]

Originally posted by zimv20
assuming gays are still allowed to vote...

very dramatic.

Don't you like the idea that some people in this world would like to keep a ceremony for the promotion and celebration of a Male and Female unification as the ideal partnership for procreation?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Neserk
I think there is a slim possiblity it will be passed. If it is passed it will be overturned by another amendment in the near future!
I predict, now that Bush as mollified his religious conservative base by supporting an amendment, that this proposal will sink slowly into the west. Not that the gay marriage issue won't come up again in the election, but no way do the Republicans want to promote such a controversial Constitutional amendment during an election year. Stick a fork in it, it's done.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I predict, now that Bush as mollified his religious conservative base by supporting an amendment, that this proposal will sink slowly into the west. Not that the gay marriage issue won't come up again in the election, but no way do the Republicans want to promote such a controversial Constitutional amendment during an election year. Stick a fork in it, it's done.

I sincerely hope your right. When I first heard about the amendment I was sick to my stomach. Then I was furiously angry! Oddly, the idea of such an amendment fueled me to such anger that every where it is feasible and appropriate I talk about how wrong it is. And how right allowing gay people to get married is.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by kettle

Don't you like the idea that some people in this world would like to keep a ceremony for the promotion and celebration of a Male and Female unification as the ideal partnership for procreation?

No because then I could not be married to my husband as we are unable to have children. We knew this prior to getting married. By your definition we would have been denied a marriage license.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Neserk
I sincerely hope your right. When I first heard about the amendment I was sick to my stomach. Then I was furiously angry! Oddly, the idea of such an amendment fueled me to such anger that every where it is feasible and appropriate I talk about how wrong it is. And how right allowing gay people to get married is.
Yes, and this is why I think it doesn't work as a political issue. It's waving the bloody flag for the social conservatives, which is why it won't go away completely, but it also fires up a lot of people on the social left. I also think it causes quite a few who might not have thought about this issue very much to ponder it as a civil rights issue, and this the Republicans don't want to happen. The Democrats would probably wish it away too -- since it's potentially such a polarizing issue, and nobody quite knows how it will play out. So I think same-sex marriage will remain just below the radar this year. Everybody's scared of it.

[kettle]

No because then I could not be married to my husband as we are unable to have children. We knew this prior to getting married. By your definition we would have been denied a marriage license.

Why could you not marry your husband?
You never know what luck or life may bring.
Do you think with a little more luck and a wife you will increase the probability of children?

[amnesiac1984]

Do you think with a little more luck and a wife you will increase the probability of children?

eerrmm IIRC SHE is the wife. (although I apologise if I'm wrong Nerserk)

[Neserk]

Why could you not marry your husband?
You never know what luck or life may bring.
Do you think with a little more luck and a wife you will increase the probability of children?


Because marriage is for procreation and we can not procreate. If marriage is for the purpose of procreation then after people are done having kids and their kids are grown they should no longer be allowed to be married. Couples who choose not to have kids or who are incapable of having kids can not get married either. Afterall, that is the reasoning stated for why people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get married.

[zimv20]

if these guys are serious about amending the constitution for the "sanctity of marriage," then how about an amendment forbidding divorce?

[Neserk]

if these guys are serious about amending the constitution for the "sanctity of marriage," then how about an amendment forbidding divorce?


I'm thinking one forbidding spousal abuse and adultery would be even better.

[kettle]

Because marriage is for procreation and we can not procreate. If marriage is for the purpose of procreation then after people are done having kids and their kids are grown they should no longer be allowed to be married. Couples who choose not to have kids or who are incapable of having kids can not get married either. Afterall, that is the reasoning stated for why people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Look, I know you are not that stupid. Your opinion is just being disrespectful to a ceromony that has been around since forever. It is about the union of the Male and the Female, if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. Go and design yer own preferable ceremony, it is as easy as that. :)

[gekko513]

Look, I know you are not that stupid. Your opinion is just being disrespectful to a ceromony that has been around since forever. It is about the union of the Male and the Female, if you don't like it, you don't have to do it.
I respect your view, although I personally don't think same sex unions would be disrespectful to the traditional marriage ceremony.

Go and design yer own preferable ceremony, it is as easy as that. :)
This one is a little harder. Marriage is not just about the ceremony. It's also about the legal rights and duties you get from the union.

In Norway, same sex unions are not called marriage, but partnership. It is not much of a ceremony, but when you register as partners, you get approximately the same legal rights as a married couple (minus adoption). In addition to this, many churces offer a blessing ceremony for gay partners. It is up to each individual church and priest to decide if they wish to offer this.

I think it may be important to recognise this difference between the religious/traditional/ceremonial part of the marriage and the legal part!

[Sayhey]

We could have an amendment that says all parents must be called "June" and "Ward" and all families must live in suburban homes with white picket fences. As long as we are mandating that our family structure mimic a model that never existed to please our own mythology, why not go all the way? ;)

edit: sorry, I'm showing my age again. "June" and "Ward" were the parents on the 1950s sitcom "Leave it to Beaver" - for those too young to get the silly reference.

[zimv20]

white picket fences

yeah, walk into a paint store and try ordering "white" paint. kind of like asking a country full of people to settle on one definition of "marriage".

[Rower_CPU]

Look, I know you are not that stupid. Your opinion is just being disrespectful to a ceromony that has been around since forever. It is about the union of the Male and the Female, if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. Go and design yer own preferable ceremony, it is as easy as that. :)

Please find an objective, verifiable source that says marriage is about the union between and man and a woman and has been "forever".

This has been shot down many times already, but you seem game to give it a shot.

[IJ Reilly]

edit: sorry, I'm showing my age again. "June" and "Ward" were the parents on the 1950s sitcom "Leave it to Beaver" - for those too young to get the silly reference.

Right, they were Alex and Donna's neighbors and lived right down the street from the Andersons. Those were the days!

[pseudobrit]

Your opinion is just being disrespectful to a ceromony that has been around since forever.

Well, I'm sorry we lose respect for those hallowed institutions that have been around since forever. Slavery was one of my favorites.

It is about the union of the Male and the Female, if you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

But the idea is that they do like, and they do want to do it. You're the one with the hangup about their sex and telling them they can't.

[2jaded2care]

Gekko513, the amendment proposed by Bush does not sound too different from what you have in Norway, except it would be up to the states to pass laws to recognize same-sex unions:

"Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would allow states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples."

That's from CNN.com. This is only about, should same-sex unions be called "marriage", with the same rights as heterosexual marriage, throughout the US? There are a lot states in which the majority of citizens do not seem to want this, and they would like to be able to decide the issue on the state level. (To give you some idea of state differences, here in Georgia we cannot purchase alcohol in stores on Sundays. Californians find this intolerable.) At its worst, it would be possible that a same-sex marriage conducted in one state would not be legally recognized in another state.

This is viewed as blatantly discriminatory by gay-rights advocates. Even the verbal distinction between "marriage" and "civil unions", even with the same rights attached, has been found to be discriminatory in Massachusetts -- making that state more "progressive" than Norway, apparently.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got any of this wrong. :)

[kettle]

Marriage is not just about the ceremony. It's also about the legal rights and duties you get from the union.

Yeah I agree with that, that's why there should be a ceremony, just not the established one, that would be changing what it already stands for, you shouldn't go around getting people to take vows and then change the meaning of the vows. It's not for arguement sake, this issue has polorised views and that has to be dealt with.

[kettle]

Please find an objective, verifiable source that says marriage is about the union between and man and a woman and has been "forever".

This has been shot down many times already, but you seem game to give it a shot.

I am very aware of your skills in making a point Rower, If I applied that logic to the value of having any sort of ceremony, or virtually any opinion based discussion, it would definitely slow things up.

There are two opposite opinions to this situation. Niether one looses out on the basis of being ill informed.

[iMeowbot]

Yeah I agree with that, that's why there should be a ceremony, just not the established one, that would be changing what it already stands for, you shouldn't go around getting people to take vows and then change the meaning of the vows. It's not for arguement sake, this issue has polorised views and that has to be dealt with.

I don't think I've seen stuff phrased quite that way before, and it's interesting. How do you feel that someone else's wedding, of any type, would be able to change the vows you took? (Just to be clear, not looking to argue this point, but to understnad it.)

[Flowbee]

Brittney Spears, Liza Minelli, Elizabeth Taylor, Jerry Lee Lewis, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson... This is what the constitutional amendment is going to protect?? :rolleyes:

[Rower_CPU]

I am very aware of your skills in making a point Rower, If I applied that logic to the value of having any sort of ceremony, or virtually any opinion based discussion, it would definitely slow things up.

There are two opposite opinions to this situation. Niether one looses out on the basis of being ill informed.

The make the statement as one of opinion and not as one of fact. :)

[kettle]

The make the statement as one of opinion and not as one of fact. :)

Marriage has been around for a very very very very long time and during that time it has been about Male and Female getting hitched.
Get over it. Fact.
Dig up any old scrap of knowledge you like, I will not feel any better about the sentiment of past and present ceremonial vows and how they will be effected by the inclusion of same sex marriages. As for the future, well it kind of makes the whole activity pointless. It won't make my love for my love any less, but it will make it harder to recognise and express my ideals for life.

I will just have to find people who want to celebrate the hetrosexual wedding ceremony, that will be O.K. until someone tries to make that illegal too, at which point I'll probably give up on the whole idea until the world comes to its senses again.

[IJ Reilly]

It should be clear by now that most if not all of the objections to same-sex marriage are expressions of political correctness. Gay people calling themselves married might make some people feel bad or uncomfortable; therefore, it should be prohibited.

[sethypoo]

I seriously doubt Bush will amend the Constitution any time soon, he needs to focus on campaigning right now.

If he does get re-elected, then yes, I think he will push for an amendment.

[IJ Reilly]

Then we have this kind of strange story from today's LA Times:

Governor Says Law Permitting Gay Marriage Would Be 'Fine'

Schwarzenegger also tells 'Tonight Show' host that he opposes Bush's proposed amendment.

By Joe Mathews, Peter Nicholas and Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writers

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on national television Monday night that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages.

In an interview with Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," he said.

The governor reiterated his opposition to the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the state law.

But when Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marry2mar02,1,1008314.story

Aside from the fact that the Governor seems to have a problem distinguishing between the "people" and the "courts," he does seem to have flipped on this issue.

[vniow]

Then we have this kind of strange story from today's LA Times:


Wow, that is weird, I've never seen so many inconsistencies by one person in a single article!

[mactastic]

I will just have to find people who want to celebrate the hetrosexual wedding ceremony, that will be O.K. until someone tries to make that illegal too, at which point I'll probably give up on the whole idea until the world comes to its senses again.

Red Herring Alert! No one, not even the gays who want the right to be married, are even suggesting that their ulterior motive is actually to outlaw hetrosexual marriage. To claim that you are concerned because the next step past gay marriage is a ban on hetrosexual marriage is totally disingenuous.

Now if you wanted to claim that the pro-life movement has an ulterior motive by passing 'Laci and Connor's Law' I'll accept that.;) However, I've never ever heard anyone even claim to want to ban hetrosexual marriage.

[Naimfan]

Pardon my pointing this out, but those statements aren't inconsistent with each other.

What he's saying is that given the existing law in California, Newsom should not be issuing marriage licenses to same gender couples. However, if the law were changed by the legislature or by the courts, he'd be OK with it... And he says marriage is a state issue that does not require an amendment to the federal constitution. That's actually a quite nuanced and internally consistent position, and I confess to being surprised--I didn't think he was that subtle....

Best,

Bob

[pseudobrit]

Marriage has been around for a very very very very long time and during that time it has been about Male and Female getting hitched.
Get over it. Fact.

Except when it was about male and female and female and female and female (ad nauseam) getting hitched. Or male and female being forced to get hitched.

Or when it was about male and female only of the same race and religion getting hitched.

You know, except for that and a few other exceptions, then yeah, you're right on.

IOW, you're wrong. Fact.

It won't make my love for my love any less, but it will make it harder to recognise and express my ideals for life.

Ha! I'd seriously question the strength of your marriage if someone else getting the same happiness in any way effects yours or makes you feel yours is less valuable.

[janey]

keep in mind that before christianity and all those other religions that seemingly seems to be against same-sex marriages right now were wide-spread, same-sex marriages and relationships were common. it wasnt a bad thing to do and it was widely accepted. Fast forward to today, where half the world is in an uproar because thousands of people want to get married.
Maybe its because I live in California, maybe its because I'm bisexual, maybe its because I'm not a religious person, but this is an outrage. In this nation we are given the freedom to do many things. Then why is it that a major part of the US absolutely abhorring and trying to prevent what is going on in San Francisco and other parts of this nation? Why is the President-that-we-did-not-exactly-elect trying to ban something like this? A Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages would be worse than Prohibition. A waste of time, money, effort.

The idea that the word "marriage" should only be used to describe the union between a man and a woman is bs. Its about time this country stopped being so uptight and conservative and started doing what it was supposed to do, years, if not decades or centuries, ago.

Guess I now know what it must have been like for people of different races and religions to marry way back then.

[Naimfan]

I agree with you completely.

Best,

Bob

A Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages would be worse than Prohibition. A waste of time, money, effort.

The idea that the word "marriage" should only be used to describe the union between a man and a woman is bs. Its about time this country stopped being so uptight and conservative and started doing what it was supposed to do, years, if not decades or centuries, ago.
.

[kettle]

Ha! I'd seriously question the strength of your marriage if someone else getting the same happiness in any way effects yours or makes you feel yours is less valuable.

Have you read what you just typed?

Look, when I stop posting on this thread, the same issue will exist out in the real world. Will you know any more than when the thread started. Will you think that the whole world will all agree to live in the one world peace camp known as the Planet Earth, using a small handbook of "dos and don'ts in polite society"?

[kettle]

Red Herring Alert! No one, not even the gays who want the right to be married, are even suggesting that their ulterior motive is actually to outlaw hetrosexual marriage. To claim that you are concerned because the next step past gay marriage is a ban on hetrosexual marriage is totally disingenuous.

I was suggesting that carrying out a ceromony designed only for the recognition of hetrosexual relationships would be made illegal, so stop with the trick shots.

Also, I found my comedy history book and it too suggests that entire civilisations were based around the same sex marriage structure. They were positively overrun with population.

second thoughts keep the trick shots, you'll need them.

[iGav]

Well I'm all for equality and that includes gay marriages... I don't think it's right to discriminate in any way or form... not a view shared by many Christians me thinks... heheheh

[zimv20]

link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/right_hook/2004/03/03/howard_stern/index1.html)


As the same-sex marriage debate erupted last month, Protestants for the Common Good, a religious education and advocacy group based in Chicago, saw fit to publish an anonymous opinion piece (http://www.thecommongood.org/CGN/3_3/biblicalmarriage.html) in its weekly newsletter, which outlines a marriage amendment perhaps worthy of the Taliban. The piece alarmed many liberals and was fast circulated on the Web as the latest example of hard-line conservative propaganda:

"The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: 'Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government.' This is true.

"Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

"A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a
union between one man and one or more women. (Gen
29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

"B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take
concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam
5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

"C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the
wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she
shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

"D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh
10:30)

"E. Since marriage is for life, neither this
Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor
any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit
divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

"F. If a married man dies without children, his
brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry
his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her
children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be
otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by
law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

"G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable
men in your town, it is required that you get your dad
drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously
offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old),
tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course,
this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen
19:31-36)"


edit: when i posted this, i thought it was a joke (i.e. someone from Salon wrote it up; i received the text in an email from a friend and didn't know that context). but now that i've read the article, i find this is possibly written by someone who agrees with it!

[Sayhey]

zim, it is clear that Bush is right and nothing has changed in the institution of marriage in over 2,000 years. :rolleyes:

[gekko513]

At its worst, it would be possible that a same-sex marriage conducted in one state would not be legally recognized in another state.
That would make the same-sex marriage/union very powerless, I think.

This is viewed as blatantly discriminatory by gay-rights advocates. Even the verbal distinction between "marriage" and "civil unions", even with the same rights attached, has been found to be discriminatory in Massachusetts -- making that state more "progressive" than Norway, apparently.
Yes, you're right. We have many christian fundamentalists in Norway, too. They do really make this world a worse place to live in for most people. :(

[zimv20]

fyi, i made some edits (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=734229#post734229) to the salon.com thing

[iMeowbot]

link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/right_hook/2004/03/03/howard_stern/index1.html)
edit: when i posted this, i thought it was a joke (i.e. someone from Salon wrote it up; i received the text in an email from a friend and didn't know that context). but now that i've read the article, i find this is possibly written by someone who agrees with it!
Just for clarification: Mary-Ann Greanier, who wrote the Boston Phoenix article, is a fairly well known feminist and LGBT activist in the area. PCG, which republished the amendment spoof version that was making its way around the net, definitely opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[bonehead]

Here's a little humor for everyone:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?i=2&n=1

[Mac|caM]

Marriage has been around for a very very very very long time and during that time it has been about Male and Female getting hitched.
Get over it. Fact.
Dig up any old scrap of knowledge you like, I will not feel any better about the sentiment of past and present ceremonial vows and how they will be effected by the inclusion of same sex marriages.

A lot of the people that say this don't realize that in the Bible, a very important document to most people, there is hardly any man who doesn't have multiple wives, yet polygamy is illegal in this country. The "Male and Female throughout history" argument really isn't throughout history, just in recent history.

[Neserk]

A lot of the people that say this don't realize that in the Bible, a very important document to most people, there is hardly any man who doesn't have multiple wives, yet polygamy is illegal in this country. The "Male and Female throughout history" argument really isn't throughout history, just in recent history.

I *try* to tell people that but people get stubborn when they are wrong. We also have to remember that marriages were also traditionally arranged and a matter of conveince. Modern marriage hasn't been around for very long.

[frankzeg]

If it can be shown that any material advantage is obtained via the mechanism of state-sanctioned marriage ( ie in terms of any aspect of our civil or criminal law) then a prohibition against gaining access to those advantages based on arbitrary criteria will almost certainly not pass constitutional review given an even-handed assessment. That is of course a large proviso. In fact it is rather surprising that polygamy can be found to be illegal given consenting adults. What this also calls into question is the entire concept of married people being some sort of special case in law. The whole construct is based on inertia - not logic. In reality the whole thing can be degenerated to a contract between any group of adults- though we like to cling to some sort of magic to impose a veneer of permanence when in fact there is none. I should be able to create a contract with any desired degree of commitment and the state should have very little to say about it given that other aspects of law are followed ( such as a provision against slavery).

What I find amusing is the realization ( recent to me at least) that there is a large percentage of individuals in the population who do not have a consistent XY or XX compliment in all of their cells. In fact they are both sexes and neither depending on your point of reference. The law doesn't even know how to grasp those people. This alone should illuminate the problem more clearly. I guess in theory they couldn't marry anyone if the right-wingers hold sway. It is my understanding that analogous issues associated with what defined "white" and "black" were the thin wedge that eventually ended prohibitions against inter-racial marriage.

[bbarnhart]

From what I've gathered, many people are against gay marriage because it is not sanctioned by God, in other words, God would disapprove of a same sex marriage. For my point here, this God is the US christian God. So, christians would only approve of their God sanctioned marriages.

Now, what about non-christian marriages? Jewish or muslim or catholic or atheist couples seem to get marriage licenses all the time yet no one raises a sink. So, if gay people would create their own religions based on proxy of their current religion, with the addition or change of allowing for same sex marriage, wouldn't the US, as a free society, have to recognize this new religion and allow for same sex marriage?

Not that gay people should have to bother with the paperwork of creating their own religion based on a technicality.

[zimv20]

Not that gay people should have to bother with the paperwork of creating their own religion based on a technicality.
i was going to start my own religion in college, but my god the paperwork! ;-)