Constitutional Amendment

[dfbuzzbeater]

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of marriage should be consistent accross all the states, and is something that should not change at a political whim. I think an admendment is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]


I strongly and wholeheartedly disagree. The country is too diverse. If Billy Bob wants to marry is second cousin in Alabama because he loves the way her flab falls when she bends over the butter churner, fine. If Jesse wants to marry Axel in San Francisco because he has more fun on the log ride, then fine. I don't like the Federal Government sticking its nose in the SOCIAL side of this argument. If they want to regulate joint federal income taxes for homosexual and/or heterosexual couples, so be it. But stay the hell out of each individual states' business. Family economics/law like that has always been up to the states for this reason, I don't understand why the gov't is wigging out and trying to change this.

[elwoodblues]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you frame it that way, but it was put in to place so that people wouldn't have to get married (or divorced) thirty different times

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politicians are high priced whores, and they are doing what whores do.

I know this has a ~0% chance of passing. It's just a glaring example that there are a great number of numskulls around this country.

I'm not sure I agree that a single state can effectively make federal law. More like some laws follow the people whom they affect, rather than the law itself spreading around the country.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignore for a moment whether you favor gay marriage or not. Ignore whether you think there are a band of runaway judges just trying to ram gay marriage down your throat (I love that imagery, by the way.)

Is this really something that should be a constitutional amendment?

Should the Constitution be Amended to create Super-legislation, or should a Constitutional Amendment be more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you know the answer to this, because it is so obvious.

natedogg