Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2017, 10:00:29 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Gay Marriage Ammendment
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Poll
Question: Should an ammendment be passed by the state congresses to make it where only one man and one woman can be united in marriage?
Yes   -4 (7.7%)
No   -48 (92.3%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 52

Author Topic: Gay Marriage Ammendment  (Read 10895 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2008, 01:07:04 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Bogart
bogart414
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 604
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2008, 07:18:11 pm »
Ignore

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...
Logged

Economic score: -0.65
Social score: -2.61

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10066
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2008, 07:23:44 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18687
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: June 14, 2008, 07:16:35 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Bogart
bogart414
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 604
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: June 14, 2008, 07:27:34 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Economic score: -0.65
Social score: -2.61

Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19605
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: June 14, 2008, 10:04:09 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10066
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: June 14, 2008, 01:39:42 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines