Gay Marriage Ammendment

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

It amazes me how the forum votes compared to the dozens of states that have passed these sorts of amendments.

None of them have, because Congress never has.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, I do.

Then explain.

I think Xahar was alluding to the fact this (forum) poll was in reference to a (federal) constitutional amendment, whereas the state referenda have banned gay marriage only for that state. A higher (but still small) percentage of this forum would vote to ban gay marriage in their own state.

In either case, I would agree that this forum is substantially more pro-gay marriage than the nation.

I would of course vote no.

My point exactly.

[Bogart]

Federal constitutional amendment? No
Banning it on a state level? Yes

Not a very libertarian position there.

Sure it is, I want the state government to exercise its power, not the federal government.  You can argue that perhaps limiting marriage is not libertarian, but the idea of libertarianism is to stop the flow of government, not to lead the country into anarchy.  Sometimes government is necessary, but in a very limited and not federal form.  To have a personal opinion is quite different then forcing it down the entire countries throat.

More federalist than libertarian...

[SPC]

Federal constitutional amendment? No
Banning it on a state level? Yes

Not a very libertarian position there.

Sure it is, I want the state government to exercise its power, not the federal government.  You can argue that perhaps limiting marriage is not libertarian, but the idea of libertarianism is to stop the flow of government, not to lead the country into anarchy.  Sometimes government is necessary, but in a very limited and not federal form.  To have a personal opinion is quite different then forcing it down the entire countries throat.

The government should have nothing to do with marriage. They shouldn't be licensing or banning it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Federal constitutional amendment? No
Banning it on a state level? Yes

Not a very libertarian position there.

Sure it is, I want the state government to exercise its power, not the federal government.  You can argue that perhaps limiting marriage is not libertarian, but the idea of libertarianism is to stop the flow of government, not to lead the country into anarchy.  Sometimes government is necessary, but in a very limited and not federal form.  To have a personal opinion is quite different then forcing it down the entire countries throat.

The government should have nothing to do with marriage. They shouldn't be licensing or banning it.

Do you say the government should have nothing to do with civil unions either?  That is kind of out there, we need something to say people are together so they can have joint bank accounts, etc.

[Bogart]

Federal constitutional amendment? No
Banning it on a state level? Yes

Not a very libertarian position there.

Sure it is, I want the state government to exercise its power, not the federal government.  You can argue that perhaps limiting marriage is not libertarian, but the idea of libertarianism is to stop the flow of government, not to lead the country into anarchy.  Sometimes government is necessary, but in a very limited and not federal form.  To have a personal opinion is quite different then forcing it down the entire countries throat.

The government should have nothing to do with marriage. They shouldn't be licensing or banning it.

Do you say the government should have nothing to do with civil unions either?  That is kind of out there, we need something to say people are together so they can have joint bank accounts, etc.

Given the contentious use of the word "marriage," some people think that the government should be involved only in civil unions--leaving marriage to the religious domain. I assume that is what is meant here.

[Secretary Polnut]

Absolutely not.

If the argument about "religious significance" of marriage is key - then I think separation of Church and State trumps it. You cannot have a separation, while also having an amendment to protect a religious rite. The Churches are not compelled to do anything.

Further, I'm a purist when it comes to constitutional law. Marriage and other issue specific matters - unless it relates directly to heads of power and authority or specific or implied rights, it has no place in a consitution.

The whole idea makes a mockery of the constitution. You use the consitution to outright ban something because it makes the screeching Mob uncomfortable?

[SPC]

Federal constitutional amendment? No
Banning it on a state level? Yes

Not a very libertarian position there.

Sure it is, I want the state government to exercise its power, not the federal government.  You can argue that perhaps limiting marriage is not libertarian, but the idea of libertarianism is to stop the flow of government, not to lead the country into anarchy.  Sometimes government is necessary, but in a very limited and not federal form.  To have a personal opinion is quite different then forcing it down the entire countries throat.

The government should have nothing to do with marriage. They shouldn't be licensing or banning it.

Do you say the government should have nothing to do with civil unions either?  That is kind of out there, we need something to say people are together so they can have joint bank accounts, etc.

I think that marriage is a unique combination of a religious institution and a private contract. There should be no licenses for marriage.