Why does the constitution have to amended to ban same sex marriages?

[BOSSHOG]

BECAUSE THE BAN IS NOT IN THERE NOW!

So will some religiously insane lurking yahoo please explain to all us liberals, the basis of your "redefined" argument? And also please chat about the founding fathers original intent.

[johnnypneumatic]

1. by creating this amendment, they give support for future gay rights laws

this amendment will not pass, but...
anyone who supports it, and the senators who vote in favor it, are tacitly admiting that gay rights and gay marriage are issues that should be handled at the federal level and not left to the individual states, thus opening the door for a future pro-gay marriage/rights laws and amendments

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. It's the most dramatic and sweeping gesture they can think of.

They owe everything to the support of the fundies, what could possibly be a grander gesture than a
constitutional amendment?

[LaPera]

3. It's election time divide and conquer...After they steal the election they

must explain how all the polls & exit polls were wrong...it(gay marriage ban)worked in 2004 nobody dared question the huge voting descrpencies all over the country after the election was over - and it'll work in stealing it 2006(this November) to keep the republican majority in Congress!!!

The Diebold and ES&S electronic voting machines they need hacked in certain precincts this November have already, long ago, been targeted and ready to manipulate!!!

And after election day, the White House/Rove spin will be the same lies as in 2004...How could all the polls be so wrong...Rove's bullshit again..."Well people came out to vote against gay marriage" and the lazy media will go along and the people won't question it and again the republicans will hold the majority for BushCo to continue their dirty work!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. It's rather simple.

The Constitution protects the rights of homosexuals, so it has to be amended to remove those rights.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. This is the latest in the

'don't look at Iraq, look here'! distractions. What I can't figure out is why people would think ANY kind of constitutional action is required regarding marriage. If it has to be regulated, it certainly could be argued that it is a states right thing. I'm not sure our fellow citizens understand the original meaning and purpose of the federal government. The federal government has NO business telling anyone whom they can or cannot marry...... :mad:

[CPMaz]

6. Article IV of the Constitution scares the hell out of the fundies

It states (from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section1)

"Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

The only way to ban same-sex marriage that passes the Constitutional sniff test is to amend the Constitution itself; otherwise, if even one state legalizes it (and sticks to it), EVERY OTHER STATE must respect that.

On a side note, CSPAN2 has the debate on the cloture amendment on right now. So far, the position of the supporters of the amendment seems to be "Well, *we* wouldn't ever marry someone of the same sex, so *no one* should be able to. We just don't like it." They are unable to find any stronger support for their position (like demonstrating how the marriage of a same sex couple hurts anyone.)

Hey, same sex marriage isn't for me, either, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to ban it. I don't like brussels sprouts or country music, but if two freely consenting adults who do like those things want to hook up, I say "go for it - knock yourselves out.

Yeah, this is a bit of a rant. I think this whole thing is the least important hot-button issue of our times (flag-burning has fallen to 2nd). I also think the debate is just an excuse to avoid talking about real issues, like corruption, the war in Iraq (and pending war in Iran), the failure of the Bush Admin to obey the law, etc.

[Totally Committed]

7. Because our Constitution guarantees EQUAL PROTECTION

UNDER THE LAW for all. This is why the RW said women didn't need the ERA... they were already equal, and were guaranteed equality under the law. This is the law they think "activist judges" will now use to grant the right of marriage to same-sex couples, and this is why the law has to be amended so that there will be EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW -- EXCEPT IF YOU'RE GAY.

TC