1
   

Existing Laws Allowing For Gay Marriages

 
 
Umbagog
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2004 04:59 pm
Amendment I
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.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1) The States and Federal Government do not recognize the legitimacy of a marriage without a state-issued license, making marriage a civil institution. This violates the First Amendment all ready, because if we are free to worship and marry in a church, the law should recognize it automatically, without the need of a state-issued license.

2) The current situation of state-issued licenses for marriage to be recognized by the law and to receive the 1,049 legal protections therein is a discriminatory civil institution based on sex.

3) A constitutional amendment defining marriage as restricted to one man and one woman to preserve the sanctity of marriage violates both the First Amendment AND the Fourteenth Amendment.

Attacking gay marriage, therefore is attacking two amendments in the Bill of Rights, and any constitutional restriction here with regards to freedom of worship and equal protection under the law is an attack on the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves...a downright attack on two centuries of advancement in this country. The Bill of Rights supercedes state laws as well.

I'm curious to see how they plan on butchering the Bill of Rights to protect their prejudices against other Americans. Question
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 723 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:20 am
Butchers they are and the are trying to sell us a cut of meat that is just plain rotten.
0 Replies
 
SealPoet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:11 am
My Modest Proposal.

If and when the Constitution gets loaded down with this discrimitory piece of business...

All Hetero married persons should immediately truckle off to their nearest town hall and apply for a Civil Union license. It's the only fair thing to do...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:12 am
Then they can begin being uncivil to one another?
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:17 am
Cute seal. I say we all stop paying our electric bills. Candles will create a nice ambiance in City Hall.

That's just the kick of this whole issue, Seal. They already have civil licenses. They couldn't get married without them. The license you get isn't the legal approval allowing you to worship under the religion of your choice. It is the ticket to 1,049 laws that benefit the two people entering into the union, that others do not get to benefit from.

The big hush here is that the institution of marriage has been discriminatory all along. No wonder they are all showing damn little outrage they are supposed to be feeling. They've opened Pandora's Box here, American style. If the state did not require a license in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue, since the throngs of gay people wanting to get married would be surrounding the churches of their choice, not city hall.

Oh I bet they are mad as hell at Bush for throwing a big log on this fire. His amendment is also worded very carefully ( and disingeniously at that) to make those 1049 laws restricted to a marriage between a man and a woman...i.e., the status quo...BUT IT IS THE STATUS QUO THAT IS DISCRIMINATORY, never mind the attempt to make it MORE SO...

Priceless. The fools put their hand in it this time.
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:22 am
Hell, come May in MA, I would consider marrying just about any guy to get the legal protections and to make the political statement. Rich, smart, hot and sane would be nice, but hell, these are trying times, and I need all the perks I can get. Hell, we could live under the same roof and pretend to love one another like any other married couple doing it. We'll go to the animal shelter and adopt some pets for dependents. My little buddy Bonzo could use some canine company anyway. He is such a retard, and has damn little canine skills. All the other canines make funny barks at him all the time. It isn't right I tell you. Bonzo deserves the benefits of a loveless marriage as much as any other dog does.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:31 am
Marriage or partnerships are not the lynchpins of society they are imagined to be -- we have far greater problems than dwelling on whether two people who assert love for one another want the legal and monitary benefit of marriage. It's the usual sophistry of politics that throws up this smoke screen making most of us choke on the fumes.
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:38 am
If every two Americans in this country got married, who would stand to lose the most money, land, or property?
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 03:31 pm
Sen. Jo Ann Sprague (R-Walpole) urged her colleagues to vote no on any amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, saying that "All of us want to leave a legacy that we acted in accordance with our belief in tolerance, our belief in individual merit, our belief in the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We owe it to those we love to uphold, and keep inviolate, our Constitution -- a Constitution that guarantees all of us, not just some of us, equality before the law."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Existing Laws Allowing For Gay Marriages
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 02:17:48