Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

should we pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

 

There is no need to ban "gay marriage" because there will never be any such thing; but there is nothing wrong with an amendment prohibiting any government entity from countenancing as marriage any union other than that between one man and one woman.

 

nice sophistry.

 

Why? So then you are against contracts?

 

Nope, equality should extend to marriage.

 

this would have all been avoided, if conservatives just accepted civil unions, with all the rights & privileges as marriage, for same-sex couples.

 

Well what a question. Of course we shouldn't!! But if you think that should be done, should we also pass a Constitutional amendment to ban Heterosexual divorces, all abortions, and to ban and imprison parents who disown their children because they are Gay? Seems quite fair enough to do.

What should happen is to have a Gay team in every state take care of LGBT matters concerning marriage, equality, rights etc. and a Straight team to push only for their own but not cross into what doesn't directly concern them such as same-sex marriage, etc. That way it couldn't be more fair. The Gays and Lesbians would not be empowered to make decisions for Heterosexual straights and their life but neither would Heterosexual straights be empowered to make decisions about LGBT issues and people's private lives that do not directly concern them. There would then be no reason to bicker, fight, become angry and spend tons of millions of dollars as has been done by a majority in the states trying to marginalize and vote against a minority on their civil and human rights (Gays and Lesbians) when the courts have overwhelmingly ruled that they cannot do that and have thus overturned such propositions and votes that were cast, and ruled in favor of Gay Marriage and Equality effectively striking down the Anti-Gay Marriage Bans. Thus, that would be the most sensible thing to do for parity for all concerned.

 

or if other conservatives like myself support marriage period, regardless of whetehr its same sex or not

 

we should have the courts define what marriage is. same as the courts should decide when a human life begins and is allotted the same rights as any other human, but we have cowards on the bench

 

SCOTUS are not scientists or philosophers.

there only role is to decide what does and does not, comply with the existing constitution.

 

Actually the sophistry is entirely on your end, since you're the one who has bought into the spectacularly preposterous conceit that a man can marry another man.

You're more than welcome to rephrase your questions so they're not retarded.

 

Every other aspect of marriage requirements are controlled at the state level
I believe gay marriage just like age requirements, waiting requirements and blood tests
Should be decided on A state level
But I have found it very interesting that the same people that continually rave about States'
rights are the same people that want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

And there's never been a national outcry over the fact that the minimum age requirement
for marriage In Kansas was 12 years old up until recently

 

There are no conservatives who support "same sex marriage".

 

Actually, I think that the equal protection clause is enough. If this fails to work in the future, then there should be an equality clause against discrimination in the Constitution.

 

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried

 

No doubt you'll get plenty of agreement from your fellow faux conservatives.

 

No doubt you have zero idea what you are talking about, now run along and get educated, then come talk to me about what *all* conservatives believe in

 

No need for any of that, obviously, seeing it is self-evident that every conservative worthy of the name wants to conserve what is good, which is the opposite of what happens when lunacy is enabled under color of law, which is what you support.

 

I support equal treatment under the law, you support segration under the law, something I will never support

 

No it wouldn't. It would have only been a matter of time before liberals wanted the title too and would have made a big fuss about semantics. The same way it will only be a matter of time once gay marriage is unilaterally legalized before liberals force churches to marry same sex couples against their will. Thus legally requiring them to violate their own doctrines and effectively nullifying the First Amendment.

Just watch.

 

So do I. Homosexuals have had the right to marry from the country's inception, but they've never been interested.

Dunno where you get that idea, but it can't be from anything I've said here, since it has nothing to do with "gay marriage".

So you don't support the segregation of pedophiles from children. Right?

 

please show wehere homosexuals have had the right to marry since inception. Prove it
Since when are pedophiles not americans deserving of equal treatment under the law, to include punishment when they break the law? No i do not believe they should be segregated anymore then a rapist of women segregated from women. Neither is right.
Nice try at trying to tqist my words into something it isnt

 

People ought to be able to marry whomever they want. Makes no difference who you marry to me, hey, you want to marry a tree, that's your business; have fun.

 

Marriage is a secular contract between two people and the state. Banning one set of people from making a contract is not consistent with freedom or equal protection. I am assuming that you have no problem with people signing contracts to buy and sell houses. So I ask you again are you against contracts?

 

Credit where credit's due. That is just about precisely what Bush's original Constitutional Amendment did. Bush has defended himself for proposing it in order to guarantee just those rights. (However, the conservative power structure glommed onto the part where it forbade gay marriage and conveniently forgot the rest, as he was pretty much sure they would, voila, instant wedge issue)

(I'd more than appreciate any clarification of this that would return Bush to the Lying Bastard I know him to be, such as the fact that he was the one who agreed to withdraw all the troops from Iraq, and Obama had in fact wanted to amend that agreement, but Khalifa wouldn't go along.)