This gay-marraige Constitutional Amendment is not Christian

[x-g.o.p.er]

I think this proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage flies in the face of Christianity. The hypocrisy of the fundamentalists has never shown brighter. Judge not lest you be judged, love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have others do unto you are just rolling through my head for no particular reason...

I am an avowed heterosexual, and have been married to my wife for almost fifteen years, but for the life of me, I can't see how this is detrimental to me in any way, shape, or form.

There are also two core political isues at stake: personal freedom and individual/states rights. I think it's funny that "the party of small government", (the same party that claims to want to scale back the role of federal government in every day life) wants to impose, through a constitutional amendment no less, a law that should be decided by individual states.

I also find it ironic that the party that touts itself the "champion of individual freedoms" would deny those same freedoms to a small group of people...who are just as much American as I am. Wasn't the purpose of a representative republic to prevent this very thing from happening?

If this amendment gets passed, and a certain group of people can be individually marginalized by fiat, then who's to say another group couldn't be?

I weep for the future.....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. I agree

All these divorcees and adulterers want to *amend the Constitution* over this? Unbelievable. They need to take the log out of their own eye before they start trying to remove specks out of other people's eyes.

[OneBlueSky]

2. so maybe we should amend the amendment? . . .

let's call it "The Defense of Marriage Amendment" . . . and write it so that it bans gay marriage AND divorce . . . the latter of which, it can be shown quite conclusively, is a REAL, documented threat to the institution of marriage . . . think any states would pass it? . . .

[jansu]

3. Freedom is the first Human Right!

They want a marriage based on the Bible. Here are some quotes from that book on the ideal Christian marriage. I have heard the argument that these are all old Testament, except one. Well, so is the chapter and verse they use for being against homosexuality, the Ten Commandments, ect. You can not have it both ways!

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)v

[x-g.o.p.er]

7. Let's establish the "Department of Religion"...

and outlaw those that disagree with the prevailing party or religion in power. Oh wait, we can't, because we have a separation of church and state. At least for the time being.

But marriage is a religious ceremony, and if the religious ceremony of marraige is recognized in the Constitution, do we have a separation of church and state anymore? I think the ACLJ, arguing in front of sympathetic judges, could make that connection.

And if we no longer have a separation of church and state, why can't we establish a Department of Religion? And then couldn't we outlaw those who's views are "abnormal"? And send them to re-education camps?

Sound too far fetched?

[jansu]

24. Marriage CAN be a religious ceremony, but it is a CIVIL ceremony

because you have to get a marriage license from the State to have it, even if in a church, before a judge or under the water! I have attended many that do not have one iota of religion in them. It is a civil ceremony which can be held in a religious place, church, etc. with religious vows or secular held anywhere. It does not matter where you held your ceremony, you get a marriage certificate from THE STATE!

[denverbill]

4. You keep surprising me ex-goper.

There are a lot of conservative Democrats around the country, maybe even on DU, that aren't as progressive as you are. As a happily attached hetero-du'er, I too favor gay marriage. I have always thought it was unfair to restrict benefits to single people. For example, when I was single, married people with children got benefits that far exceeded mine, getting wife and kids covered by health insurance, and social security death benefits, etc. I always thought that I should be able to pick anyone (friend, brother, sister, neighbor, whatever) and add them to my policy when I was single. Even today, my wife isn't on my insurance because she works too. Why shouldn't I be allowed to claim an unemployed friend on my health coverage?

50 years ago, 98% of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. I'd venture to say that less than 25% oppose it today. Society has progressed. People who oppose 'race-mixing' today are generally looked upon as cultural Neanderthals. Maybe 50 years from today, the same with be said about gay marriage.

[x-g.o.p.er]

5. Thanks...

I agree about your single vs. married benefit restriction, too. When I was single, I always got the crappy shift hours at work, because I "didn't have a family", lol.

It's not that I am specifically "for" gay marraige, but I don't think a conservative christian can truly be called either when they support something that flies in the face of their philosophical beliefs. But it seems they HAVE cornered the market on hypocrisy lately.

Supporting the legal discrimination of a group of people through government mandate is neither conservative nor christian.

I am saddened by what extreme fundamentalism has done to both the label "conservative" and "christian." I think it could be more accurately called "uber-radical" "hatred".

[jansu]

8. Luckily, our country is ruled by "rule of law, not rule of man"

As long as the state puts it's stamp on a marriage, then it is not a religious thing....but because it issues licenses, the Constitution rules here!

We are a Republic, and as such, the rights of one overrule the mob rule. So it does not matter that a majority do not want a thing, if it is a right we need to acknowledged and make it right!

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. We're all crying along with you

[Kamika]

9. Even if it is christian i don't see what The president has to do with it

I'm a Christian myself and someone should tell Bush that the country is godamn secular, not christian.. wtf we have trillion in deficit, terrorism hanging over us..

And he f*cking wants to make an amendment about gay MARRIAGE ?!?!

Someone should spell out priorities(bet I mispelled it) to him.


The president OR the goverment shoudl have NOTHING to do with who the hell marries who.

WTF our constitution should have decide who can marry now?? I mean JESUS

[tom_paine]

10. That's because the Imperial Family and their Stooges are NOT Christians.

It is as carefull caluclated an act as most politicians, from both sides', religious hypocrisy.

The Philosophical Guru of the Busheviks, Leo Strauss (a Nazi-style-morality-pushing Jew, if you can dig THAT contradiction) I think I mentioned him as potential reading for you before, since HE and his ideas are the "Christianity" of the Busheviks.

My favorite Straussian dogmas:

(and these are paraphrases, not direct quotes; as always I invite you to see for yourself)

"The only morality is that of the superior over the inferior."

"Religion is for the foolish masses, NOT for the superior rulers"

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935
(this is a partisan opinion piece)

http://www.straussian.net/
(this is a positive site devoted to Strauss; note how his philosophies of superior/inferior and his thoughts on the uses of religion are conveniently undiscussed, but don't take my word for it...also the whole Bushevik Pravda Point that people who hate Strauss are anti-Semites is more Imperial Pravda bullshit...how do I know? I'm Jewish and most definitely NOT an anti-Semite)

[x-g.o.p.er]

11. Sadly, the religious hypocrites

don't even see what they're doing as hypocritcal, especially religiously. They view it as a moral act, when in fact it is immoral. But it goes back to the quote of Ronald Bailey in the Strauss piece:

"Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

Just more of the do as I say, not as I do philosophy, and as long as they control the "media" outlets, the truth will be choked out of existence.

How are you, Tom? Hope the family is well.

[Bandit]

12. Their main argument that I can gather is that all of the added benefits

are going to bankrupt America. I had a "discussion" last night with a winger and this was the argument he used. He said look at Hawaii. He said their economy has just been devastated. I asked him if that was why virtually every state's economy has been devastated since 2001. He sort of gulped and said no but it created more pressure when it was least needed. They are so hung up on somebody getting something for nothing. These people truly are not well. I told him I would rather pay everyone's benefits than buy bombs and bullets to kill people with. It was lost on him.

[x-g.o.p.er]

18. It is no more expensive than if

a heterosexual couple had to apply for health insurance benefits. If you follow that logic, then company's would only seek out single people to hire. Some people have no clue. My wife and I had this discussion last night, too, and she brought up the argument that we would have to pay for care for AIDS, and other diseases we don't have to now.

But AIDS treatment is no more expensive than if a hetero spouse develops cancer, or a child develops some ghastly disease. She saw my logic, and she agreed.

Yes, women can agree with men!!!

[stepnw1f]

13. I thought people...

had come to this country to escape religious persecution?

[x-g.o.p.er]

14. This smacks more of civil rights than religious persecution

If it was religious persecution, I think they would say what religion you had to be, or be punished. Like the radical Islamic regimes

[stepnw1f]

16. It is persecution on those without religious fundamentalist ideology

My correction.

[x-g.o.p.er]

17. Fair enough

[blondeatlast]

15. Agreed. nt

[RainDog]

19. the "Republican Party" is no longer the Republican Party

sadly, the Republican Party has allowed itself to be taken over, without a fight, by Dominionists...who are not and never will be real Republicans.

Pat Robertson is a Dominionist, as is George Bush (at least for face value), and Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed and Micheal Ledeen. They were assisted in their take over by former democrats who had to leave their party, such as Perle and Wolfowitz. Antonin Scalia is their spokeman in the Supreme Court, in his insistence that our govt's laws (which he has sworn to uphold, btw) are secondary to what he and his cronies have decided is god's law.

We are only looking at phase one of their overturn of democracy.

There is a reason for the huge deficits. They want to destroy ALL federal spending, including medicare, medicaid, education, even prisons (because people should either be executed or sold into slavery, according to their Old Testament version of what America should be). With the forced bankruptcy of the federal govt, Americans will be forced to attend fundie re-education camps to get an education.

They also believe that homosexuals should be executed simply because they are homosexuals.

This is all on record, but good people cannot believe this can be their agenda because, well, that's what makes a person good or decent...the inability to do such things to their fellow citizens.

[x-g.o.p.er]

23. Almost completely agree...

I think we will still need prisons, and the all-out executions I find a stretch. But they are horribly homophobic and do not want gays and lesbians to be on equal footing as heterosexuals.

[Nobody]

20. It's not Constitutional either

The First Amendment specifically bars Congress from making any law that favors one religion over another. And most of the proponents of a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriages use religion as their excuse.

They'll have to repeal the First Amendment in order to make it Constitutional.

[Rebellious Republican]

21. I believe it boils down to taxes!

Honestly, gay marriage has no effect on me and my wife! They are saying that this amendment only bans MARRIAGE by Gays, how ever they say that individual states will be able make other other arrangements for gays to enter into CONTRACTS! So this administration says same sex marriage is bad, but hey its OK to live together! So if they were to allow same sex marriage, then they would also be entitled to tax breaks that married people get, correct? Keep them single so they have to pay higher taxes, I know it would be a small amount compared to the deficit. However I believe that George is probably looking under the couch cushions for any spare change he can find in order to keep from repealing his tax breaks for the wealthy!

"If necessary," he said, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state, or does start at the state level." - George W. Bush

Oh, well that's clear as mud. How can you codify excluding same sex couples from marrying and respect states' rights? We shouldn't be surprised, Bush usually says he wants things both ways, if it will keep him popular. http://keplersuncles.com/node/view/672

[x-g.o.p.er]

22. I agree to a point...

because Bush wants to have his cake and eat it, too, when it comes to tax revenue, but this is all about civil rights, states rights, and a particular religious viewpoint that will be forced on all, completely turning the Constitution on it's head.

But that's not new, is it? When Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law, he called it unconstitutional at the signing ceremony!!

Nothing this man does shocks me anymore, and he must go back to Crawford.