Constitutional Amendment

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of marriage should be consistent accross all the states

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? States have various age requirements, various residency/waiting periods, different laws about dissolving the marriage (divorce) and there hasn't been a huge problem.

[xpokerx]

First off. I oppose gay marriage.

Now, no, there should not be an amendment in the constitution outlawing it. The constitution is there to frame the government, not the people. The constitution tells the government what it can and can't do, it doesn't tell the people what they can and can't do.

Now, that said. There needs to be a Federal Law that regulates gay marriage. Here is why. Marriage liscense's are granted by each state individually. However, Federal law requires that one state must respect the marriage liscense of the other states. Understanding that, you can see where the problem will occur. State X has no gay marriage. State Y has gay marriage. State X MUST respect gay marriage of people marrier in State Y, even though it is not legal in the state.

So, no, there should not be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.

However, there should be a Federal Law outlawing gay marriage. Afterall, its not like you cant get married if you are gay, you just cant marry someone of the same sex.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what would be better? If, instead of worrying about amending the constitution, legislators followed it. I say this as a Brit looking in at your whole political process, thinking WTF happened to half the stuff in the original document.

[/ QUOTE ]

This *is* about what's in the original document. The Full Faith and Credit clause guarantees that if you get married in one state, the rest *must* recognize the marriage.

The only way for the rest of the States to not be forced into something they don't want by the law in Massachusetts is to amend the constitution.

This is clearly a situation unanticipated by the framers.

[Meech]

I agree with the Brit.

The constitution was not designed to ram religious dogma down the country's collective throat.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Nor was the Full Faith and Credit clause put in to allow one State to ram social engineering down the country's collective throat.

[Meech]

lol, weak.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Opposite side of the same argument. I'm also guessing you have no clue where I stand on the issue.

BTW - if a vote were taken in MA on whether or not same sex marriage should be legal, it would likely fail as it would in the other States, so I doubt that this is "ramming <anything> down the country's collective throat."

[Meech]

What it really amounts to is a giant open public BJ to the base.

This amendment, domestic spying, etc, etc. I keep hearing "I'm a uniter, not a divider". My ass.

The only positive thing about this, is while they are holding their circle jerk sessions about banning gay marriage -- they aren't chipping away at my personal freedoms or my bank accounts.

[DrunkHamster]

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved

This sounds to me like congress could easily, and constitutionally, restrict single sex marriages to be only binding in states which legislate for them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The only positive thing about this, is while they are holding their circle jerk sessions about banning gay marriage -- they aren't chipping away at my personal freedoms or my bank accounts.

You are 100% correct. Besides, this has zero chance of getting 67 votes in the Senate, so take a deep breath and calm down.

For you edification, I couldn't care less who marries whom. I think this is in many ways, a stupid argument.

However, if you're not troubled by the fact that the SJC of a single State can effectively make law for the enitre country, all your yapping about "personal freedom" is ignorant.