[Natoma]

This is a post for people interested in this petition to stop the Republican-proposed Constitutional Amendment that would make marriage between two men or two women illegal. This was in response to the Supreme Court decriminalizing sodomy a couple of weeks ago.

If you would like to support this petition, please sign up at http://www.dontamend.com

It was recently created and can use the support of those whose lives it affects, as well as those who are against this type of discrimination. Thanks.

[RussSchultz]

The proposed amendment does not do what the petition claims it does.

It does not deny rights to gays or lesbians, unless you call co-opting a religious institution and forcing yourself into it a right.

It leaves wide open the concept of civil unions, life partners, etc that contain all the rights and obligations of marriage. It simply removes the definition of marriage from the legal domain and further separates church from state.

[Silent_One]

I'd like to see the proposed amendment. Any links?

[Natoma]

You can be married outside of the church. It is not a religious institution in our society. Religious marriages are merely one way to enter into the state of marriage. You can just as easily go down to city hall.

Besides, there are some religions, and some sub-sects of christianity, that have stated they now recognize same sex marriages and will perform the rites associated with it, if the couple chooses. No it won't be legally recognized, yet, but the point remains that not all religions and sub-sects of religions bar same sex marriages.

Besides, unless Marriage is completely and irrevocably removed from governmental influence (which will never happen), then it is a legal construct and thus, if withheld from gay men and women, does deny our rights as citizens of this country.

If Marriage remains in it's current sphere, it is more social and governmental than religious. Hence the fact that you can get married outside of a church if you wish.

Bill Frist labeled Marriage a Sacrament. If it's a sacrament, then it has no business being regulated by the government, as per separation of church and state. No establishment of a government sponsored religion or religious body.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

I'd like to see the proposed amendment. Any links?

You know something is wrong with a petition when there is no direct reference to what the petition claims to be against.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

You know something is wrong with a petition when there is no direct reference to what the petition claims to be against.

It's been proposed verbally Joe. You can google and see the articles on it, but the language has not been set in stone. The proposed language would state that marriage is the relational embodiment between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, for the purpose of procreation and the furthering of society. But it is not on paper yet.

You could call this a preemptive petition. And please, save the sarcasm for some place else. You don't have to sign it if you don't want to.

[RussSchultz]

I'd like to see the link on the petition website, also.

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.htm
(or search for marriage amendment in google)


I think the wording for their second sentence is rather poor. They're trying to remove the Supreme Courts ability to endrun the amendment with judicial advocacy, but it comes out sounding like there can be no law that gives the legal rights, when their little chart obviously shows that it should be a state decision.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

It's been proposed verbally Joe....

See Russ' post.

Oh, and:

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

This is a post for people interested in this petition to stop the Republican-proposed Constitutional Amendment...

Oh, and BTW, both Republicans AND Democrats are sponsors of the propsed amendment.

The bi-partisan cosponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment are: Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Ralph Hall (D-TX), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), David Vitter (R-LA).

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Besides, unless Marriage is completely and irrevocably removed from governmental influence (which will never happen),

That is exactly what this amendment is proposing.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Oh, and BTW, both Republicans AND Democrats are sponsors of the propsed amendment.

I said republican proposed. Not sponsored. Bill Frist, the speaker of the House and arguably the most powerful republican outside the white house, is the one who proposed the amendment. But this is nitpicking.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

That is exactly what this amendment is proposing.

To remove all legal rights associated with marriage? Please show me where that exists.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Bill Frist, the speaker of the House and arguably the most powerful republican outside the white house, is the one who proposed the amendment. But this is nitpicking.

Yes it is. One wonders why you mentioned it in the first place.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Natoma

To remove all legal rights associated with marriage? Please show me where that exists.

It is removing the definition of marriage from the hands of the government, and purposefully leaving open the question of civil unions. This removes the governmental intrusion into the institution of marriage. Rights will be conferred to civil unions (of which marriage is a subset). Marriage will not need to be co-opted to mean something it never has.

Or is that what you're really after?

[Natoma]

Look I'm not going to get into this with you. We both know my political/social feelings wrt the republicans and your political/social feelings wrt the republicans, so lets just leave it at that.

This thread was created not for a long winded debate, but for people to know that official petitions exist.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

To remove all legal rights associated with marriage? Please show me where that exists.

Specifically, it doesn't remove rights associated with marriage: it allows states to decide whichever legal unions they want to have those rights that marriages (union between man and woman) have. They just can't "call" anything other than a union between a man and a woman a "marriage."

This amendment would prevent the COURTS from bestowing say, a same-sex union as "automatically" having the same benefits as a union between a man and a woman.

States can legislate that however they want.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

This thread was created not for a long winded debate, but for people to know that official petitions exist.

Out of necessity, this thread is also to educate people so they know what the amendment (that is the target of the petition) is actually proposing. We wouldn't want people signing a petition without being educated on what it's actually against, now would we?

[RussSchultz]

Here's another petition, while we're at it.

http://www.petitiononline.com/26542/petition.html

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Out of necessity, this thread is also to educate people so they know what the amendment (that is the target of the petition) is actually proposing. We wouldn't want people signing a petition without being educated on what it's actually against, now would we?

This amendment was created solely because the courts stated that the states could not discriminate against gay men and women for engaging in sodomy. The conservative movement is scared that this has opened the door to allow same-sex marriages, and thus are trying to head it off at the pass and specifically define marriage as one man/one woman.

No matter which way you slice it, that is blatant discrimination. Changing the legal definition of marriage to fit societal bigotries is something this country has already done in the past, so it is no surprise. But now, thankfully, people are more open minded.

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is. So I don't think people really need that much education wrt this issue. I knew this would bring out the anti-gays but I posted it anyway because there are people here truly interested in equality for all our citizens. Those are the people this post is mainly directed towards, as I stated.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Here's another petition, while we're at it.

http://www.petitiononline.com/26542/petition.html

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Natoma

This amendment was created solely because the courts stated that the states could not discriminate against gay men and women for engaging in sodomy. The conservative movement is scared that this has opened the door to allow same-sex marriages, and thus are trying to head it off at the pass and specifically define marriage as one man/one woman.

No matter which way you slice it, that is blatant discrimination. Changing the legal definition of marriage to fit societal bigotries is something this country has already done in the past, so it is no surprise. But now, thankfully, people are more open minded.

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is. So I don't think people really need that much education wrt this issue. I knew this would bring out the anti-gays but I posted it anyway because there are people here truly interested in equality for all our citizens. Those are the people this post is mainly directed towards, as I stated.

In Canada the left had the definition of the family redefined to that they could allow for homosexual marriage. Anyhow it wasn't only conservatives that opposed the gay ruling in Canada there was a massive protest even in the Liberal party, just like you are seeing in the Democratic party as well. Here is an interesting perspective on what is happening in Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commenta...9-38A08B7C6606

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

In Canada the left had the definition of the family redefined to that they could allow for homosexual marriage. Anyhow it wasn't only conservatives that opposed the gay ruling in Canada there was a massive protest even in the Liberal party, just like you are seeing in the Democratic party as well. Here is an interesting perspective on what is happening in Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commenta...9-38A08B7C6606

The definition of family has not been changed at all. It is still those who live in the same household that share the same goals and values, and have long term committments with one another. It is also defined as those sharing a common ancestry. It is also defined as one or two parents who have children.

There was no need to redefine family as gay and lesbian couples already fit the bill. This fight is about getting the rights that are already defined for us, but are trying to be snatched away by changing definitions to the exclusion of certain groups of people, simply because of sexual orientation.

And need I remind you that right-wing conservatism, while dominating the republicans, does indeed exist in the democratic party as well. That much is not in dispute.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Natoma

The definition of family has not been changed at all.

In Canada they had to reword the definition.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

The conservative movement is scared that this has opened the door to allow same-sex marriages, and thus are trying to head it off at the pass and specifically define marriage as one man/one woman.

More accurately, the conservative movement is scared that the courts are overstepping their bounds. More accurately, the conservative movement believes this is a legislative issue, to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

No matter which way you slice it, that is blatant discrimination.

All laws are discriminitory.

I have zero problem with a state legislating same-sex unions to have the same rights as man-and-woman marriages.

Changing the legal definition of marriage to fit societal bigotries is something this country has already done in the past, so it is no surprise. But now, thankfully, people are more open minded.

Changing the legal definition? There is no legal definition right now, which is the point of this legislation.

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is.

Um, the "true" impetus is exactly how I said. It's to guarantee each individual state the legislative authority to bestow benefits associated with "marriage" as they see fit, and not force one particular point of view on everyone.

I knew this would bring out the anti-gays...

How many other anti-gays have no problem with a state legistlating same-sex unions to have the samne benefits as marriages?

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

It is removing the definition of marriage from the hands of the government, and purposefully leaving open the question of civil unions. This removes the governmental intrusion into the institution of marriage. Rights will be conferred to civil unions (of which marriage is a subset). Marriage will not need to be co-opted to mean something it never has.

Or is that what you're really after?

Until the day that legal and social rights/protections are removed from the marital status (home purchasing rights, hospital visitation, taxes, adoption, estates, etc), then it is still affected by governmental "intrusion" as you say.

Civil Unions do not have all of the rights of marriage conferred upon them, nor are they recognized universally. If you get married in Europe, it is recognized here. If you get married here, it is recognized in Japan. Civil Unions do not enjoy that same universal status, and thus are not the same in nature.