Orrin

[House of Mustard]

The famed Utah senator, well known on this forum for proposing the destruction of all computers that were  using file-sharing, is at it again.

He is proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marraige.  Now, I am not a big fan of gay marraige, but how does he think he's ever going to gain enough support for this thing?  A constitutional amendment requires two thirds of both houses to pass, and then 3/4 of the states have to ratify.  What is Orrin thinking?

(I was going to say 'what rock did he crawl out from under?' but then I realized the answer: Utah).

[fuzzyoctopus]

I wish people would use their brains on this issue.

I believe- morally- that homosexuality is wrong.  HOWEVER, it is not the governement's place to say that homosexuality is morally wrong.   As a non-partisan government (hah) it should grant marriages to ALL couples, or it is not doing its job of protecting the rights of its citizens.

Churches can say that homosexual marriages are morally wrong, the governement does not have that right.  If they can actually pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bans homosexual marriage, I will be surprised, but if they do, then it will be legal for people to say that.  The way the laws are now, there is no national law saying what is and is not a 'couple' or a 'marriage' and no matter what your personal beliefs are, you can't just throw law out the window whenever it interferes with your personal beliefs.

Even Utah sells alcohol- they heavily restrict it, but they know damn well they wouldn't be able to stop it totally.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

hrm...
Now we enter strange territory.

Isn't the fact that it's wrong to kill someone essentially a moral issue?

Isn't the fact that it's bad to abuse chemicals essentially a moral issue?

Most laws are looking at moral issues.

Just playing DA here, but yeah.

Then we get into the argument made on cross fire today. If the government can't prevent gay marriages, why is it allowed to prevent incest or bigamy/ploygamy?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Eric, killing someone is a crime.

having homosexual sex or a homosexual relationship is not a crime.  If they pass a law that says "it is illegal to have a homosexual relationship" then it will be legal.

Until then it is out of their moral jurisdiction.

Governments can prevent incest and bigamy/ploygamy because the law says that it is illegal.  People voted on it, and it was decided by the majority.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

also, fuzzy, there doesn't HAVE to be a national law. Laws regarding marriage are reserved for the states because they aren't specifically given as the responsibility of the federal government in the US Constitution. If a STATE makes that law, the state has that right.

[House of Mustard]

Huh?

They can't have jurisdiction on it until they make a law against it?

[fuzzyoctopus]

I just wish Mormons  all people would use their brains on this issue instead of hiding in the basement behind excuses like "it's not right" that don't require any effort on their part.

There that'll teach me to post before I think how to defend something

[Spriggan]

according to polls 70% of americans oppose gay marrage, so it could pass.  I'm opposed to gay marrage, but not legal cival unions (gays deserve equal rights under the law). Does that make me a Hypocrite?  maybe, but marrage is a civil union by US law.  I guess the thing that bugs me is that marrage christian term that is defined as a union between a man and a woman.  Just as much as I think gays should have the rights granted to them that a CU would, I don't want to Goverment redifineing my and others religious views.

[House of Mustard]

Yes and, much to everyone's surprise, states actually DO have the power to legislate morality.  Specifically, the states have power over health, safety, morals, and welfare.

[House of Mustard]

But Sprig - that 70% does not include elected officials.  On this, any self-respecting democrat will voite against it, and it will fail fail fail.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Yes and, much to everyone's surprise, states actually DO have the power to legislate morality.  Specifically, the states have power over health, safety, morals, and welfare.

Yes- they have power to legislate those things.  The problem is that homosexuality is not a danger to public health (don't reply and yell about AIDS) or to safety, or to the welfare of anyone.  And morally it is becomming a thin line.

Personally I don't believe that homosexual marriage will become a reality in my parents' lifetime.  I think that once their generation passes away, things will change however.

[Spriggan]

Accoriding to what I've seen the majority of democrats oppose it too, probaly because of the poll numbers.  Both Gephart and Dean (the two most liberal pres. canadates) are against it, so is Kerry, Liberman and countless others.  And don't fotget that an admendment has to be voted on by the people as well as the congress.  So with numbers that high I doubt many poloticians would risk the possible bad press.

Also adding to your statment on states and morality.  Cities have the right (up heald by the suprieme court) to pass local decency laws.  So a city can ban the sell of porn if it finds it to obscene and it's not violateing the 1st admendment.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Do you know of any cities that have successfully done so?  I am curious to see, and if so to see how small the population is.

[Lieutenant Kije]

Hey - I'm not going to chime in with my opinion on the issue.  I just wanted to mention that it is the responsibility of elected officials to represtent their constituents in the governmental bodies to which they are elected.  Orrin Hatch is representing the easy majority of his constituents (Utahns) when he proposes what he has.   Should he not propose the amendment just because he probably won't succeed?  I don't think so.  He's just doing his job as he sees it.

So there's that to consider.

[Spriggan]

There's lots Fuzzy and even large cities around LA have used it (regaurding Strip Clubs).  Probaly the most famous case is the example in "People Vs Larry Flint" where in Ohio a city made it illegal to sell porn.  Larry did it, and today it's still illegeal to sell it there.