I don't get it...

[prowler1971]

Same-sex marriages. Why so much opposition? Why a constitutional ammendment? What are people afraid of? Outside of the general gay bashing/hating. There are people in favor of gay rights, but not same-sex marriages.

I would love to hear from someone opposed to same-sex marriages and hear their rationale.

Comments (initially) screened so this doesn't turn into a shit-storm and mud-slinging.

(BTW: Bigotry is alive and well in Alabama. They passed a measure banning same-sex marriage by a 4-1 margin.)

Comments

[danctrf.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the constitutional ammendment part of it was to stop all the judges who decided the best way to institute social change was to assume the power of a couple other branches of government since they were taking far to long to get things done. Regular laws weren't standing up against that, so the only appropriate response if you are concerned about protecting the current definition of marriage, is to make an official ammendment that rules out any of the loopholes the judges were using to legislate with.

Note I'm deftly avoiding the, "why is gay marriage objectionable" issue as you are already involved in that discussion elsewhere.

Dan

Protecting the current definition?

[prowler1971.livejournal.com]

Who's definition is this?

I decided to consult Webster.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons

Webster recognizes that same-sex couple can be married. And why so much protection over a definition? There are lots of words that have been redefined over the years. It seems they are fighting to protect a definition so as to exclude a percentage of U.S. Citizens from being able to partake in marriage to someone of their choice.

This still doesn't answer the question of "Why?"

Note I'm deftly avoiding the, "why is gay marriage objectionable" issue as you are already involved in that discussion elsewhere.

I am?

Re: Protecting the current definition?

[danctrf.livejournal.com]

My mistake, I thought I saw you respond to another conversation I'm neck deep in. I was wrong.

[bdragon.livejournal.com]

This argument presupposes that these judges are for gay marriage, as opposed to impartial arbiters of the law. Perhaps the judges genuinely feel that preventing gay marriage is unlawful or unconsitutional, and are willing to set aside their own personal objections?
Personally, I don't see how gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. Are there some poor heterosexuals that will be prevented from marrying? Are the gays cutting into some unknown marriage quota? Otherwise, it seems there's nothing needing defending..
Now, it isn't clear from your comment as to whether you yourself are for or against gay marriage, so I'm not trying to direct any criticism at yourself, but you don't know me, so I thought I'ld attempt to make that clear.

[merlin-v12.livejournal.com]

What really bugs me, from a procedural standpoint, is that there is no precedent for the Federal government to make ANY sort of law or Constitutional amendment governing marriage. Family law has traditionally been the purview of the states, and the last time I read the Tenth Amendment, it said something along the lines of, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Ergo, IMHO, the Feds haven't got the right to make a decision affecting marriage. Only the states do.

I wonder if anyone remembers what happened the last time states' rights vs. the Feds was made an issue of...about 150 years ago. It wasn't pretty.

[darkgryphn.livejournal.com]

Ok, I need to preface this by saying its not my oppinion, but what others have said to me when I asked them the same one you are...and multiple people have said this to me...

By allowing two people of the same sex to marry, you are opening the door to people being able to marry just about anyone...people would try to say its ok for them to marry their sister, daughter etc...

Apparently, when this was a debate going on in a class and I responded to the gentleman with "So your saying what? We let two men or women marry and suddenly people are marrying goats?" I caused some trouble...sigh. I really should just stay out of debates I guess.

The answer you can give them...

[prowler1971.livejournal.com]

I have heard this argument before. It's pretty simple, actually. A goat cannot sign the marriage contract.

As for marrying their sister, daughter, etc. Why should we care? And aren't there specific laws governing these sorts of things?

[bdragon.livejournal.com]

there are public health issues with inbreeding. there are no public health issues with homosexuality.

That's your answer..