gay marriage roll call

[WMS]

Fair enough, but we both know that the underlying goal of the groups in Massachusetts was to then use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to force gay marriage upon the entire country...correct?

Yes, that is probably true, and in that sense I agree with you. The FFCC does nothing more than require each state to respect another state's public acts, etc., as evidence in courts without questioning them. It does not require a state to actually grant any benefits to a couple merely because some other state says that they are married.

Figured as much, but I wasn't certain. A point to remember about me is that although I am a mild communitarian, I also have federalist leanings and prefer to settle a lot of stuff at the state level. Also, I have to admit that I'm unsure as to the constitutionality of some things I support in principle - if it really is unconstitutional to, say, set up some form of nationwide public health care, then either pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing it or do it at the state level, but none of this 'let's have the courts allow it anyway' crap.

[jokerman]

I am very opposed to the breathtakingly arrogant attempt by the left wing to force their POV on everyone else via the court system. It smacks of the 'we know what's best for everyone so we're just going to MAKE you live by our rules'* attitude that is highly elitist and anti-democratic, leading to, well, damn near the entirety of the Warren and Burger Courts' decisions.

Well, if the plain text of a state Constitution actually does happen to require recognition of same-sex unions, then the courts are indeed the appropriate venue. (Whether the state Constitution actually does so or not is a different matter.)

What the constitution says is and always has been a matter of interpretation with regard to social issues.  For me it's really more a matter of popular soverignty; that is what I believe in for most social issues.

[Emsworth]

What the constitution says is and always has been a matter of interpretation with regard to social issues.  For me it's really more a matter of popular soverignty; that is what I believe in for most social issues.

Well, Preston, the Constitution is the result of popular sovereignty. "We the People" have made it the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, if the Constitution does require or prohibit something (and I mean in reality, based on the plain text, not in the minds of judges like Ginsburg or Stevens), then I think that it should be respected just as much as a popular referendum, and even more.

[Akno21]

Yes, (2005 person answer)

[Max Power]

Yes, (2005 person answer)

Congratulations on your 7,000th post in advance!!!

[opebo]

I support gay marriage, though I find marriage itself a repulsive institution.  Also, and more to the point, I would like to feed those who oppose gay marriage to the lions.

[Colin]

Lean yes thought I would rather see government get out of marriage all together.

[dazzleman]

No.

[The Duke]

So far, there is no legal obligation that married couples have to raise children.  In fact, childless couples seem to be perfectly normal now.

What threat to childless couples constitute marriage?  To me, the idea that marriage becoming about love is a bad thing is a...strange concept.

But it is true that most couples do have children, and are often expected by others to have children.  When someone leaves no children, we think of that as an anomaly.  So while their is no explicit obligation to have children, it is still a societal expectation that indicates a set of common values.

Here' why marriage should not be about romantic love, and this insipid Hollywood-Fairy Tales-Pop Music nonsense about falling in love and living happily ever after is bad.

In my experience, most people who are married are not in (romantic) love, and most people who are in (romantic) love are not married.  It is also true that most people take the traditional marriage vow before getting married (I actually think the state should refuse to recognize any marriage where the traditional vow in some form is not taken), which goes like this:

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live?"

So, the common conception of marriage is still that the contract is expected to last for a full lifetime, and we are dissapointed when it doesn't.  We also accept that love is a feeling.  These are two critical premises, so they must be stated explicitly.

Another of my premises is that we cannot control our deepest feelings, and in most cases cannot discern a rational basis for feeling a certain way.

If love is a feeling, and we cannot control our deepest feelings, how can we base a critical social institution whose intention is permanence, and in fact publicly pledge to remain in the contract permanently when we admit that the basis for our contract cannot be controlled?  We make a promise that by definition we know we cannot keep!

The only way that the traditional vow can make logical sense is to interpret the word love as meaning something other than the romantic love we now base our realtionships on.  To make romantic love the basis for marriage is not only illogical but it sets up dangerous expectations about what married life is like, myths we tell ourselves simply because it feels good to hear those myths.  It is not accidental that arranged marriages are more stable than "love" marriages.  Instead, love should be seen not as a pledge to have long walks on the beach together, but as a pedge to a familial love, similar but not identical to the kind that exists between very close friends, a mutual system of support.  Love the feeling should be out, and love the bahavior should be in.

Gay marriage undercuts this idea by saying that when two people who are not related and are both above the age of consent are in love, they should have the right to get married.  I just don't think that romantic love is a good enough reason to just let people marry.  This of course assumes that "love" is something mnore than a psychological construct whose purpse is to blind us from the realization that our affection of the opposite gender is not some beautiful unity of like-spirits, but is in fact nothing more than primitive sexual urges.  Ever notice how men suddenly fall out of love with their wives when their wife is over 40 and their secretary is under 30?

[Smash255]

Yes

[True Democrat]

Yes

[opebo]

What the constitution says is and always has been a matter of interpretation with regard to social issues.  For me it's really more a matter of popular soverignty; that is what I believe in for most social issues.

Well, Preston, the Constitution is the result of popular sovereignty. "We the People" have made it the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, if the Constitution does require or prohibit something (and I mean in reality, based on the plain text, not in the minds of judges like Ginsburg or Stevens), then I think that it should be respected just as much as a popular referendum, and even more.

What garbage.  The constitution was imposed by an elite oligarchy.

[Middle-aged Europe]

do you support legal gay marriage (not the half-ass 'civil unions')

Yes.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

completely

[Flying Dog]

yes 100%