Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

Let's take your non-concerns in backwards order:

I don't care if our other neighbor is smoking 8 pounds of marijuana every night.---unless he gets so stoned that he comes over and burns your house down, or a thousand other reasons.

he shouldn't care if I have a house full of guns ---unless you get drunk and use one on him, or your house catches fires and a bullet explodes and goes through his window, or someone breaks in your house and steals the guns to use,.....or a thousand other reasons

I don't care if my neighbor is having sex with a man,--unless the man has Aids, or if he's married, or if homosexuality leads to a thousand other things, that we may not even know yet, but that we suspect, and which might be why homosexuality has been frowned upon for thousands of years.

 

Sorry you're sick, but the country is not likely to come together and sing Kumbaya anytime soon.

 

LMFAO!!! Just because they are anti-gay marriage or pro normal marriage does not make them anti-American.

 

Right, so you don't care about any of them except the one that disgusts you. Exactly my point..

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sick?

 

Yes you do. It's called a Constitutional amendment. If you pass an amendment saying that no one has freedom of speech, then no one has freedom of speech.

That's what an amendment IS. That's WHY we have freedom of speech.

Telling gays that gay marriage is fine is wrong in two ways, and the most important way is that it is telling gays that homosexuality is okay. - when we do NOT know that it is, and many of us suspect that it is VERY not okay for the mental health of the homosexual OR for the longterm good of society. Or for the existence of homo-sapien if you want to get extreme.

 

An interesting analogy because "homicide" is addressed by State criminal statutes but I could see the possibility of the US Supreme Court ruling that "suicide" is a protected Right of the Person under the 9th Amendment which would block enforcement of state murder laws being used to prosecute a doctor that assisted a person in committing suicide.

Always remember that the US Supreme Court never creates law but instead invalidates laws that violate the US Constitution. It's always been a myth that the US Supreme Court "legislates" from the bench because, in reality, it "de-legislates" from the bench. It never creates law but instead negates laws based upon the violation of the US Constitution by the law.

The US Supreme court cannot "legalize" same-sex marriage but could invalidate prohibitions against same-sex marriage. It can de-legislate a prohibition established by law based upon a violation of the US Constitution which is similar to what it did in the Windsor DOMA case.

 

Maybe you should learn to read.

I've stated in this and other threads that a COTUS amendment could be passed changing things completely.

That wasn't my statement. What I said was that I can not pass a law that says that you as in you specifically have to shut up and mind your own business.

I suppose though that technically speaking I could try to get an amendment passed giving me the authority to tell individuals to shut up, and that would would have the force of law. Interesting proposition.

 

When did I talk about an "injustice" being done to you if you did not get to hear my opinion? If you never got to hear my opinion, no injustice would be done to you.

Likewise, homos do not "need" to hear your opinion of them. Your statement above that they need to know your disapproval of them or else they are suffering an "injustice" is ridiculous and a bit arrogant.

 

Dude, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that I personally care or don't. I was using the poster's words as he used them.
I don't care if you have guns. You have a right.
If you smoke dope you're stupid, but I'm not going to get bent about it.
If you're gay, you're even more stupid, but I'm not going to freak about it.

But for YOUR OWN GOOD and society's, I would make keep weed illegal, and would not condone gay marriage. No big deal.

 

Under federal law murder is defined as the taking of a human life with malice forethought. IMHO that rules out assisted suicide.

 

So your view should be the default view? If so, why?

Many more disagree. So whose opinion should take precedence?

- - - Updated - - -

It is a very authoritarian view. You presume to know what is best for other people.

 

To which of the amendments suggested in this thread do you refer?

 

Hmmm, you and I must be speaking a different language. I will say tho, that I don't remember saying that gays need to know my opinion of them, but I DON'T think they need to hear my vote saying that homosexuality is just fine, so go ahead and change the def'n of marriage and (*)(*)(*)(*) a bunch of people off.

- - - Updated - - -

I was kind of wondering that too. I had to look up Article 4 and I still don't get what he/she's saying. Maybe it's my dumb.

 

In fact, our freedoms are based on natural law first. The Constitution is a set of rules for the government. Whether or not the Constitution allows for freedom of speech, by natural law, you and I still have that right.

There is no evidence to support your "supposition" that homosexuality may be detrimental to anyone in any way. I would suspect that the potential for mental health implications of homosexuality are a result not of homosexuality but of bigoted treatment of homosexuals. The idea that homosexuality is detrimental to society is also of dubious reality.

I am heterosexual. I have been physically attracted to women since I was young. I have never been physically attracted to another man. If a man is physically attracted to another man, then he has a homosexual tendency. If he finds a willing partner to engage in homosexual activity with, they are not hurting anyone. Why should they be denied the right to marry each other if they determine between themselves that they would like to make such a commitment and thus receive the benefits and endure the sacrifices such a commitment brings?

Keep in mind, YOUR own moral prejudice is not a valid reason to deny the rights of others.

 

We ALL know what's best for other people in millions of categories, don't we?

I know that smoking is not in your best interest. Don't you?
I know that cheating on your wife is not in your best interest. You may NOT know that. Many liberals wouldn't, even though they still might not think it's "right" to do it.
Lastly, I said. "and many of us suspect that it is VERY not okay for the mental health of the homosexual OR for the longterm good of society." and you said:
"Many more disagree"

How do YOU know many more disagree? You don't even know that MORE disagree.

And in fact, I think you're dead wrong.

I didn't say this, but I think MORE people, when pinned down, and in secret, would admit that they think that homosexuality is probably not good for the individual and the species. I could be wrong, but I have no dog in the race. I just think (like I think smoking is bad for you) that homosexuality is bad for you.

 

From a Constitutional perspective same-sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. It addresses the personal-financial partnership established by the couple as all laws that use "marriage" as a criteria related to the personal-financial partnership where income, assets, and liabilities are merged by the couple.

In Windsor that addressed DOMA Section 3 the issue addressed by the Supreme Court was inheritance and not the sexual relationship between the women. DOMA Section 3 imposed an inheritance TAX on a legally married person that other legally married persons would not have to pay and that violated the Equal Protection Clause. It was exclusively about the money and equal protection under the law related to taxation by the federal government.

 

You mean like how we fought to defend slavery and Jim Crow? Oh wait! That was you guys!

Are you aware that - depending on what the ultimate scientific truth turns out to be about homosexuality - this might potentially be the only time the right has ever been on the wrong side of history in America?

Want a Hurtz Donut? (Hurts, don't it?)

 

That's the part these people are failing to understand.

Gay is icky, make it illegal today could EASILY turn to straight is icky make it illegal , tomorrow.

That's why we base our laws on not allowing people to harm other people , not on what is icky.

 

Prejudice is the wrong word.

Gays never HAD a right to marriage, until it was specifically given them in certain areas.

If it's given them, I'm okay with it because it would be the law. But BEFORE the fact, I am against it.

 

What is harm? You think that straights who feel that the institution of marriage is being corrupted don't feel harmed?
Is that harm any worse or better than the "harm" that a gay feels by having to have a gay union with rights instead of "marriage" with the same rights?

Is it "harm" to be called a homo or f**? Is it "harm" to have to see two men kissing lips if you find it repugnant?

You're on the wrong debate track, methinks.

 

I'm not basing what I think on religion,just thousands of years of practical application

 

You said:

 

You are a discerning individual.

 

Actually, I would argue that all adults had the right to marry until the government started trying to decide who could and who couldn't..

- - - Updated - - -

That relates to my other thread. Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about words? As a straight married man, no I'm not harmed by gays getting married at all. Neither should you be.

 

There wont' be an amendment. But a lawsuit in California will force the issue federally for voter disenfranchisement.