That wouldn't accomplish the intended effect, which is to win elections by garnering votes from bigots.
Yeah but the stupid masses do not. For some reason the morons that believe in this garbage really feel that Bush is "Saving America" and "Bringing values back to society". They eat that crap up like hotcakes and it just baffles the **** out of me. Honestly, I don't even think bigtexxx really believes in this crap.
Totally disagree. If it's a religious ceremony, state or federal government has no business regulating it. If it's civil, the state has no business restricting it to a particular group of people. Either way, the government should be ambivilant. Church's are welcome to not allow gay weddings at their particular location. Other church's can marry whoever they want.
When you get married you apply for a license just like if you wanted to carry a handgun you get licensed. If I get a gun license in MN that doesn't mean that I am allowed to carry a gun in Wisconsin so if I visit Wisconsin I can't carry a gun but once I retur to MN I can. If States chose not to recognize a marriage from another state that would mean that the marriage doesn't apply in that state. If they want to move to the state and remained married they could apply for a marriage license under the rules of the state they are moving for. They wouldn't be divorced in the other state since they weren't married in the first place and just travelling to the new state wouldn't nullify the marriage license in the original state.
Why does marriage even have to be a religious ceremony? If a gay couple got married in an atheist country abroad, are we gonna deny their rights based on the moral beliefs in this country?
Yer darn tootin we are! That's what us Americans do! We get into everyone's business because we're miserable creatures that hate our lives and want to see everyone else as miserable as we are! Thas AMERICAN!!!!
I think I can agree on the greater issue whether governments at any level should be in the marriage business. It seems to me like most this can be handled as contract law. That given though at the moment marriage is and has always been handled by the States and state law isn't uniform regarding marriage. I think Gwayneco's point is correct that there already is a Constitutional solution to the gay marriage issue by leaving it to the states to decide which ones allow it and which ones recognize it since the states already have somewhat different standards and regulations for marriage. To the point that states should get out of the marriage business altogether that is a related but not exactly the same point. This Ammendment is about whether a federal / Constitutional standard should be applied defining what is marriage.
The only reason the government is involved in marriage is because there are all sorts of legal schtuff related to it. The government doesn't regulate barmitzfahs (how's my spelling), or communion because it doesn't have to. My point about the different states, is regarding all that legal schtuff. Tax filings....inheritance rights...health plan entitlements...custidy of kids...It's not just a matter of leaving your wedding ring at the state line.
If a straight couple marries in MN it is automatically recognized in WI. You're talking about different rules for gays and that constitutes discrimination. Discrimination based on sexual orientation ought not to be allowed anywhere. This is a civil rights issue and we resolved as a nation, long ago, not to leave civil rights matters to the states. But, again, none of this is about finding a solution. It's about riling up a bunch of bigots in order to win elections. And everybody knows it.
so what if you're gay and you have a large estate and want to leave it to your partner who makes flammable american flags and doesn't speak english?
I could be very wrong on this...but I seem to remember when reading about this issue, that Bush was OK with civil unions..and Kerry was a little less than pure on the issue too. In fact, it wasn't a stretch to say they pretty close in there views. So I expect you're exactly right....it's all about riling everyone up. Don't mention the war.
It has to be a federally recognized to have any affect. The reason people who have same sex partners wish to be recognized as "married" is for such absurd things as, Health Insurance, inheritance, the right to be in the Hospital if their partner is sick, really weird things like that. The term "civil union" gets thrown around like it's a synonym for marriage, but it's not, the laws don't apply the same. It's all about just getting the same civil rights as everyone else. I often wonder how much insurance companies fight "gay marriage" because it would cost them the most money.
Kerry was less than pure on the issue, it's true. Unfortunately he pretty much had no choice as there remains enough anti-gay bigotry in this country that taking a position against anti-gay discrimination is political suicide. In fact, Clinton encouraged Kerry to take a stronger stand against gay marriage and warned him he'd lose if he didn't. To his credit, Kerry refused to do that. All of this underscores the point though that none of this is about the issue itself, but is rather about the lowest form of cynical political pandering. As it was once with blacks, it's about winning elections by pandering to bigots.
The whole idea of "civil unions" was born as a compromise position and is an exact replica of "Separate but Equal" even while, as a nation, we decided some time back that there is no such thing.
There is a lot of complicated stuff but that's why we have contract law. In regard to state different professional licensing standards make things very complicated when you have professionals working on projects in other states. Those cause huge headaches, which I know from personal experience, but there are ways of working them out.
Don't know, but it's been said before that if you want to stop gays from having sex, let them get married.
