Should there be a same sex marraige amendment

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed


Full faith and credit, is the key. If that was not the case your then perhaps your drivers license, and current marriage or birth certificate would not be valid outside of state boudary.

.

---

interesting point, a friend just went to get an IL license haveing moved here from kentucky. well he had to send away for a noterized copy of his birth certificate as Il will not accept an out of state ID as proof of age. Also note that some states do not put your image on their drivers license, those licences cannot be used as official id in any other state.

Hmm interesting, that seems to be a direct reflection of the Patriot Act. So I wonder - if someone presses the issue would a constitutional amendment be necessary to enforce those items when the Patriot Act expires or is rescinded? I don't think the founders envisioned the ability to make exact duplicates of identifying papers. Their goal was to ensure that as a union of states, legal documents could be transferred. It’s also interesting to note: the Article IV even went so far as to include warrants of arrest and court orders. There is another key, court order. That protected a state from having a murderer cross state lines and be exonerated.

Back from a business trip everyone. Oh let me start by replying to Iceborg's reflection.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Iceborg
I agree with your argument OverdueSpy or at least where you are coming from, though, I do not believe it is just and I inevitably side with silver-bullets.

Of course, many aruge religion was the basis of the founding of the US, but slowly, surely, and rightfully, government needs to move away from religious tennets for direction. I'm not saying lets become an atheist-communist nation, but religion should not govern the people, even if indirectly. Many people feel if we lose religion guidence than we lose the morales of our society. I believe that is wrong and it doesn't give us a lot of credit as citizens. Morals can definitely be achieved without religious guidence.

---

I understand your point, however i must respectfully disagree. The US has been moving away from a religous based society for many years now. When I look around and see the propogation of unmoral acts and it's general acceptance, I become very concerned about the state of our great Union. If you condsider that the individual that commits an unmoral act is normally justified by the unmoral citizens, because the individual was abused in some fashion as a child, had their feelings hurt by someone elses actions or words, or was down on their luck. The individuals without solid morals identifies with and understands the persecuted individuals dilema. The cycle goes on from parent to child and does not break because morals, when heard by these individuals are considered to be rubbish. And why should values be anything but rubbish to these individuals? From their prespective, there are no consequences to the unmoral acts, except for possible incarceration. For morals to be effective there must be consequences that directly affect the individual feels about him/herself.

Quote:

---

For example, without religion, we should be able to allow gay marriages, but stop at the point of threesome + marriages.

---

Why stop there though, it is still a preference and a display of love right. I guess I should be able to marry my dog also. PETA should go along with this, since all animals return and show love and affection for a loving owner. Sorry about the sarcasism]

Quote:

---

I don't see how through religion you are suppose to love your fellow man, but if he has a different lifestyle, then you can condemn them. And the part about, God loves them but does not want them to live in sin; it reminds me of a news special I watched where people would kidnapp homosexuals and take them to a hospital to convert them back through heterosexual pornographic images and pyschological conditioning. In a religious statement, "they were just redirecting their path away from sin" eh?

---

You are correct forcing their path away from sin was terribly wrong, and I would bet that a follow up would find that these individuals have returned to their former lifestyles. An individual has to want to change in order for the change to be significant and permanent. Please understand that I am not about to condemn homosexuals, however I realize that their lifestyle is an abboration in the eyes of God, but it is not for me to judge. Christians are supposed to hold their brothers and fellow man accountable for their actions, however in the Christians view, this can only be achieved by understanding right and wrong according to the Bible. Yes I will condemn an individuals actions, but I will not stand here and pronounce their soul as being unsaveable because of that sin. Christianity is about forgiveness that is achieved through repentance, the renouncemant of further sin, and the quest to live ones live without sinning. We all fall short of this goal. Luckily God will forgive my momentary weakenesses but normally He has to get my attention for not following Him.

Quote:

---

So, OverdueSpy, I understand where you are coming from, but like Silver-Bullets said, its getting old. We fight wars to get rid of religious fundamentalists in other nations yet we have many running our own...

---

You are right again, it is getting old.... about 2000 years old that is. I disagree about Christians fighting wars to get rid of religious fundamentalists, minus the horrible acts of the crusades. We fight wars to stop agressive governments that are bent on conquest, blatantly over opressive, or attempting to commit genocide to a people. If we fought a war in this day and age to get rid of jundamentalists, Afghanastan, and Iraq would be the 8th wonder of the world. I can sea the travel agents spam now, COME SEE THE SEA OF GLASS!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Hmm interesting, that seems to be a direct reflection of the Patriot Act. So I wonder - if someone presses the issue would a constitutional amendment be necessary to enforce those items when the Patriot Act expires or is rescinded? I don't think the founders envisioned the ability to make exact duplicates of identifying papers. Their goal was to ensure that as a union of states, legal documents could be transferred. It’s also interesting to note: the Article IV even went so far as to include warrants of arrest and court orders. There is another key, court order. That protected a state from having a murderer cross state lines and be exonerated.

---

ahh but if state x wants to prosecute some guy who was captured in state y state x still needs to extradite him, and state y can refuse, that is a littel of what happened in the DC sniper case. States still have some of there rights leaving us with an odd mix of federal and state rules contradicting each other. Hell the only reason that every state has a drinking age of 21 is the threat of whitholding federal funds from the states.

Overdue spy, whos religious definition of marraige are we going to go by. My church dosn't recognize any marrage that was preformed outside of the church (ie if you where not married by a catholic preist you are not married) I a msure other religions have similar stipulations. So our choices are haveing a state much like isral where most people have to leave the country to get married or do we run with a secular instatution of marrage?

Oh one question for you Overdue spy, what will your opinion be when the episopalians start preformeing gay marriges?

I guess a state could make an issue out of extradiction but it is pretty much spelled out in the constitution that they will make the criminal available at the request of another state and legal documents of one state hold value in the next. They may need to have some level of proof to be valid, but still ok.

RoadClosed: there is where you run right smack int othe states rights issues, you get some states arguing that their constitution overides the US constitution and what not, things get real ugly where state law and federal law overlaps.

Just wanted to say that I miss voted. I personally think that if two people want to get married then I am happy for them.

I think that the seperation of church from state is in question if an amendment is put in place. Let religion govern the sanctity of marriage. The government should worry about others things. Like how they are gonna over spend this year. More over how they are gonna tax us for it, yet still manage to run up the defecit.

bballad - I'm going by God's definition of marriage found in the Bible. I think the Catholics intend well by not recognizing marriges performed by other denominations. This is by the way of increasing the numbers of their attendees, which I feel actually inpacts negatively upon the general view of the Catholic Church. Now, I have never read in the Bible, where it states that a Catholic priest is the only person that can marry a man and a woman. "shrug" No you should not have to leave the country to get married unless you want to married to a person of the same sex, a second concurrent spouse, or a particularly plump sheep. Of course these marriges will not be recognized in the United States.

As for the Episcopalians (sp) conducting gay marriges, I hope they come to their senses before it comes to that. I would not want to be within 100 miles of a gay marrige that is to be conducted within a House of the Lord. Just in case.

Overdue spy, whos bible are you going by? Mormon bible piligamy ok, most poligamy not ok....the nwhat about all the other religions, or do they not count in your book? these type of questions are why we have a seperation of church and state in this country, and why marraige should be a compleatly secular contract between two people, or compleatly nonsecular with no benifits or peniltys under the law.