Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[goldstategop]

Then why don't the Democrats come out openly and say gay marriage is good for America? I mean if traditional marriage is outdated, then just say so. Stop dancing around the issue.

[Bahbah]

"Actually the FMA would preserve federalism by leaving the issue of civil unions up to the state legislature."

YES.

[Sybeck1]

If a gay man wants to marry, let him find a good girl to show him what he has been missing. Gay haven't married for thousands of years, a few more thousand won't hurt one bet.

Gays didn't expect to be married as their straight counterparts as they grew up, they shouldn't expect it now.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

what PRAY tell..is a "pro-Constitutional" view of homosexualit?????

Meaning: you can't, at a federal level, take away the rights of people to hurt themseleves/do stupid things, that otherwise do not break any enforcable laws. I mean, we are talking about consentual adults here.

[lugsoul]

That's a good answer, except that it contradicts the very language of the amendment. The amendment would prohibit any state constitution from being construed to grant the "legal incidents" of marriage to a homosexual couple. So that if, for example, the Hawaii constitution required that same sex "civil unions" receive all of the legal benefits of marriage, the FMA would prohibit such a construction.

[lugsoul]

Wrong. See my #145

[abnegation]

If one State allows it, then the other 49 will be forced to acknowledge it also. One State shouldn't be allowed to decide for another, period.

[goldstategop]

The irony lost on the other side was that if they left things well enough alone, we wouldn't have to consider an amendment. Like President Bush, I'm not in favor of casually amending our Constitution. But they forced it by telling Americans they will shove gay marriage down their throats whether we like it or not. After all, progress is for our own good. And we are fools to try to stand athwart history and yell "stop!"

[firewalk]

.

[lugsoul]

Have you ever read the Defense of Marriage Act? Read it, then come back and post again.

[eiffel]

From Section 2 of H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

As someone has pointed out on this thread already, no court has even considered ruling the DOMA unconstitutional, nor, in my opinion, will they.

[johnfrink]

Are you a homosexual?????

No. Are you?

[ICX]

How dare the Democrats accuse the Republicans of "politicizing" and "forcing" this issue. This wouldn't be on the radar screen if not for the complicity of activist judges and mayors who took it upon themselves to revise laws they didn't agree with. This is something Republicans would much rather not be dealing with at the moment - but their hand has been forced and they must take action.

Rick Santorum is a brilliant, strong man with a gift for conveying his message in simple, effective terms. He is one of the leading young lights of the party and one of the most consistent across the board conservatives. What are the chances of him garnering the nomination in 2008?

[OXENinFLA]

Hatch has one of his infamous "chart".

Who was it that brought "THE SPINNER" out ??? McConnell?

[goldstategop]

If that's the problem, the language can be changed. The Democrats can bring up an amendment and we can vote for it. Let's see them come up with an alternative.

[lugsoul]

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

[StriperSniper]

Yup, that was McConnell.

[lugsoul]

And how exactly does DOMA not serve your purposes?

[Bahbah]

I see what you are saying, lugsoul, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be a state by state vote, each state deciding whether this was or was not acceptable law, and is that not federalism.

[abnegation]

"`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. "

And what was this "have I read it"? If this passes, my State won't have to put up with what Further Left and the Swimmer's State decides for us. I'm a bit confused about your "have I read it" crap.