Scrat wrote:Lightwizard wrote:Yet, it is California and those of the same ilk who have volunteered an opinion disagree with Bush and his amendment. They are split on whether the word marriage should be so sanctified as to now allow any citizen to take the wedlock vows. They are not Constitution law authorities so they feel reticent to give a final opinion but they do believe it should be given up to the states and individual religions whether it is allowed or not. Bush's ploy knowing that it may take more than two years to get an amendment passed is to garner the religious right's vote. Too obvious.
I don't agree with amending the constitution to codify marriage as a union between one man and one woman; I don't think it is needed.
BUT
everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Bush said that the decision as to whether or not to allow same-gender unions would be left up to the states. (Which is where it is now, and where it belongs.) Everyone is crying about this amendment "writing discrimination into the Constitution" when that is horseshit. This stupid amendment, if it passes, will (prepare to be shocked and horrified) set into the constitution
the definition of a word. (The exact definition that it has now and has had through recorded history, as near as I can tell.)
Now personally, I'd be fine with allowing the meaning of the word to evolve with the times, but if it doesn't, SO WHAT. IT'S A WORD.
So, if this is REALLY about ensuring that people have equal protection under the law, lobby your state to allow for same-gender civil unions and ensure that those unions carry the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities under the law as does marriage in your state, and then sit back and relax. That IS what this is about, right? Heck, take a page from the Mass court and see if you can get your state to rule that such unions MUST be called "marriages". I'm not sure I
get that, but hey, if you do, it should guarantee an immediate court challenge to the marriage amendment if it actually comes to be.
Or is this issue just another political football to you people? At the end of the day, do you care about the rights of gays and lesbians (which happens to be where I am on this) or are you just doing your best to twist the issue into something bad for the Bush you love to hate?
Again, I think Bush is wrong on the amendment, but so what?
If the Constitution is amended to read that a marriage is something only between one man and one woman, that will not deny a single person a single right in any state. State laws do that, and state laws can (and hopefully will) change that. I hope North Carolina (where I live) will one day allow same-gender unions. And when we do, I hope we are allowed to call them whatever the hell we want. But who cares what we call them, as long as they give these people the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as are available to everyone else. (That's the point, isn't it?)
scrat
This has been a pleasing enagement. You've thought and argued carefully, digging down with me through the cliches and assumptions. Thank you very kindly.
I think these words will likely be the last I post on this thread.
If you don't yet get the Mass. SC point on 'defining' the term, then this move by Bush and the proposed ammendment itself and the statements coming from those who have initiated or are supporting this ammendment ought to make it quite clear...'separate but equal' is often, if not always, an illusion.
As I've attempted to show, the arguments against homosexual marriage are logically flawed, and transparently so. There are four sorts of arguments advanced:
1) The "It just ain't normal" arguments. The terms which constitute the currency of many of these arguments - 'natural', 'normal', 'traditional' - are logically incoherent or fallacious. Further, though they frequently claim to be buttressed by history and sociology, even quite shallow study shows that they are not.
2) The "Injury to society, to heterosexual couples, to the institution" arguments have no compelling basis in unbiased empirical research.
3) The "It's against the word of God" arguments all, of course, exemplify the 'argument from authority' fallacy.
4) The "a few activist judges are 'redefining' marriage" argument. This is, it's becoming obvious, the marketing strategy for the proposed ammendment, and the talking point handed to supporters about to engage the media. We don't need to address the questions regarding what the proper role of the courts ought to be here. We can simply observe that the same 'redefinition' claim would apply to interracial marriage in Alabama thirty years ago.
Now, when we see a position or argument, which is so consistently faulty in logic, continued to be forwarded, and
passionately forwarded, then we have to turn to some explanation for why that is happening. And the explanation is bigotry*.
As regards the proposed ammendment, it is not at all clear that its purpose is merely to maintain the purity of the 'traditional definition' of marriage...
Quote:But not everyone shares that view. Some conservative scholars who oppose gay unions and some gay scholars who oppose the amendment are arguing that it might effectively block any marital benefits for same-sex couples, no matter what name is used.
A handful of conservatives argue that the sentence defining marriage as heterosexual should preclude any provision of marital benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the name. A few gay legal advocates contend that future courts might interpret the amendment to block enforcement of any laws conferring benefits on same-sex couples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/politics/25AMEN.html
As the piece above notes, one of the main authors of this ammendment was Robert Bork. Bork believes, and we ought to presume that others behind this bill also believe, that homosexuality is a sin or perversion, and that it ought to be eradicated from society, by means social, political, and judicial.
The Mass. SC said in its decision that "separate but equal" is most often an illusion. Those who are forwarding this ammendment, including the President, clearly do not believe that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.
Finally, for several months now (following on the SC finding on sodomy, the Ontario court finding allowing gay marriage, and the Mass. court decision) conservative groups have been pushing the President to state support for such an ammendment. Here and there, they have forthrightly noted the political benefits that they believe will accrue from introducing a clear and polarizing "wedge issue". But many others haven't been quite so honest and forthright, pretending that the election is quite irrelevant.
I'm afraid I find all of this extremely abhorrent. And, worse, it is but one corner of the extremism evident now in the US, reflected in the present administration.
* this is the 9th time blatham has used bigotry in seveal thousand a2k discussions
Silly me, citing the authors of the Constitution where they wrote to tell us what they meant. What was I thinking?!? 
