constitutional Amendment? Call your senators and congresspeople

[IMGONNABE40!]

I am surprised that the insurance companies take "partner status" into account when deciding whether to pay for fertility treatments. It would make more sense to have the coverage apply to the patient, not the couple. If a lesbian can be covered to have IVF etc. without having to demonstrate that she is unable to get pregnant naturally, then it does seems unfair that the same insurance co would deny coverage to a woman who has demonstrated that she is unable to get pregant naturally.

BTW--I don't think an amendment is a good idea. I don't think endorsing gay marriage is a good idea either, but we get into a lot of problems trying to legislate morality (rape and murder notwithstanding
)

 

[lucky_bunni]

Language and the meanings of words are constantly changing. I'm sure there are a lot of words from the past that don't carry the same meaning today. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to be able to cope with the fact that the meaning of the word "marriage" now means something different than it did in the 14th century.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I had a conversation with a lady yesterday who is mad that Bush got us into the war with Iraq. She is voting for him anyway so that he can "fix the mess that he started." She had me annoyed for the rest of the day. I don't understand that type of logic at all.

Did you explain to her how Kerry could fix it better?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Unfortunately, some people don't seem to be able to cope with the fact that the meaning of the word "marriage" now means something different than it did in the 14th century.

With the exception of MA, it still means the same thing in the United States, at least for now.

 

[AirForceRocks]

And I have a question for those that oppose the amendment, as I do.

Are you truly willing to leave the issue up to the states? Or are you simply hoping that by stopping the amendment, states that are opposed to gay marriage will be forced to accept it because other states do so?

 

[lucky_bunni]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And I have a question for those that oppose the amendment, as I do.

Are you truly willing to leave the issue up to the states? Or are you simply hoping that by stopping the amendment, states that are opposed to gay marriage will be forced to accept it because other states do so?

I think it should be left up to the states and I support that position. More progressive states can make gay marriage legal, while it's fine with me that certain states may not be ready to have it. I'm sure it should have an impact on where I decide to live after college.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I don't believe women should get abortions...I think they should strongly consider adoption instead, regardless of the fact that it would be a much harder road...But yet, I DON'T support legislation banning the practice. Why ? Because I believe in CHOICE, as a principle.

Spoken like a true liberal.

 

[InDueTime]

Yep, In Due Time

 

[Bob NC]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
I think it should be left up to the states and I support that position. More progressive states can make gay marriage legal, while it's fine with me that certain states may not be ready to have it. I'm sure it should have an impact on where I decide to live after college.

One problem there. Without a constitutional amendment, a same sex couple getting married in one state would have to be afforded the same status in any other state they move to, (even the states that choose not to allow same sex marriages).

I can see why YOU'D be "fine with" leaving it up to the states, if you marry your same sex partner in one state, you are legally married in every state.

This is the crux of the current argument. The majority of states do not want to be held to the decisions of a few liberal states.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I'm not sure what else, I can add here other than another good reason to vote for Kerry. Why would people who disagree with this, still be rampant Bush supporters?

I'm working my way through this thread, but I just wanted to respond to this. Vote for Kerry? Let's see if Kerry makes it in to participate in this vote. Anyone want to wager???

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Bunch of quick points: (the most important of which is this - gays have been getting married in Mass. since May...and yet my marriage is just as strong as it has ever been...go figure So much for the collapse of this well-loved institution, huh ?)

1 - Legislating bigotry is disgusting, and I hope people make careful note of the bigots that vote for this amendment.

2 - People that lable homesexuals "abominations" truly disgust me. These are the same brainiacs that labled inter-racial marriages an "abomination" back a few decades.

3 - "Defense of marriage..." Defense from what ? I wasn't aware that marriage was under attack. How is two men or two women calling themselves "married" going to "damage the institution" any more than people like Larry King who have been married 37 times ?

4 - Call it marriage if it is the same as marriage. It's a friggin' word...You're going to create a second class of citizenship simply over a word ? How silly is that ?

5 - I find people that choose to hunt animals for pleasure to be morally repugnant...Can I please get a constitutional amendment banning them from marrying and reproducing ? That's about on the same intellectual level as this amendment.

For what it's worth, i think Steve is right...They don't have the votes, and this is just an election year political ploy to try to paint Kerry as wishy-washy and the ticket as ultra-liberal for voting against this. Hopefully it will backfire, and a few of the "Yea" voting bigots will be out of a job in a few months.

I think I'm going to faint. Either that, or it's going to snow in mid July because this is the 2nd time today that I've agreed with you.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
If he has said or done anything that goes against my core value system, then it would bother me. Don't always play follow the leader on here. Especially if it's on a path going to nowhere.

I'm not meaning to pick on your posts. Honestly, that's not my intent. Being pro life is a more important issue to me. While I think the gay community is entitled to the rights of marriage/civil union, it's simply not as important to me as the rights of an unborn child. Voting for Kerry would then go against my core values. We all have to decide what issues are the most important to us and saying you're right and I'm wrong, or vice versa, gets us nowhere.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I'm not meaning to pick on your posts. Honestly, that's not my intent. Being pro life is a more important issue to me. While I think the gay community is entitled to the rights of marriage/civil union, it's simply not as important to me as the rights of an unborn child. Voting for Kerry would then go against my core values. We all have to decide what issues are the most important to us and saying you're right and I'm wrong, or vice versa, gets us nowhere.

N.Bailey, that post was taken out of context. not sure why you did that. It was directed at Steve at the time.

I am curious how all of the prolife people deal with the issue of the death penalty? Isn't that a platform that Bush is pro on?

I've never said anyone is "right" or "wrong." I'm just trying to make sense out of the nonsensical. Of course it is a waste of my time, as usual.

 

[AirForceRocks]

One problem there. Without a constitutional amendment, a same sex couple getting married in one state would have to be afforded the same status in any other state they move to, (even the states that choose not to allow same sex marriages).

Currently, due to the federal and state DOMA laws, this is not the case. If these laws are overturned, then I think you will a push for a Constitutional amendment that is written along the line of the current DOMA laws.

I can see why YOU'D be "fine with" leaving it up to the states, if you marry your same sex partner in one state, you are legally married in every state.

As of right now, this is simply not true.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel

I am curious how all of the prolife people deal with the issue of the death penalty? Isn't that a platform that Bush is pro on?

Totally different issues. To equate the two would be to equate a convicted murderer with an innocent child.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And I have a question for those that oppose the amendment, as I do.

Are you truly willing to leave the issue up to the states? Or are you simply hoping that by stopping the amendment, states that are opposed to gay marriage will be forced to accept it because other states do so?

That is a good question. I feel that with all of the other things going on now, the war, terrorism, etc. Why is Bush focusing on trying to amend the Constitution over this issue now? Obviously it's a campaign tactic.

Answer to your question: I've got to think about it for awhile.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
Totally different issues. To equate the two would be to equate a convicted murderer with an innocent child.

All life is sacred, right?

I know it's a whole other debate. maybe we'll deal more with the contridiction in the next debate.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Did you explain to her how Kerry could fix it better?

So you also agree that the war was a big mistake?

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
N.Bailey, that post was taken out of context. not sure why you did that. It was directed at Steve at the time.

I am curious how all of the prolife people deal with the issue of the death penalty? Isn't that a platform that Bush is pro on?

I've never said anyone is "right" or "wrong." I'm just trying to make sense out of the nonsensical. Of course it is a waste of my time, as usual.

Well, if it was taken out of context, I do apologize, but that is how I read it. I am pro death penalty too. I favor the rights of the victims and their loves ones to a murderer any day. In capital punishment cases however, I hope that jurors are 100% positive before they vote in favor of it. I can't be sure that's happening, but it's my hope that it happens in most instances.

I find my stance to be so much more understandable than someone saying they are against the death penalty and are pro choice. That baby did nothing and to give the criminal more rights that the child is not something I will ever understand.

I guess the only one that totally makes sense are pro life and anti death penalty people. They are pro life in both instances. I just can't seem to give the criminal more rights than they gave their victims.

That does mean, I'm right and you're wrong, it's just how we both feel.

 

[sugermouse]

SHortbun- I agree 100%!!!