[deh]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

There was talk of a national amendment to the Constitution (sorry, I use capital C to denote the big one, not state level ones) but it quickly went away when public opinion polled poorly on the subject.


Marriage is federal in that the full faith and credit act applies. (laws of one state recognized in another, thus I am married in AZ but it is recognized the nation all over, I don't need to get married again should I move from this state to another, or travel to another and need maritial rights) Notice the wording on the amendment you had posted...it mentions recognition specifically for this, should another state decide to allow gay marriage, it is already in there that Ohio will not recognize it.

Gotchya, but suppose that in the end hypothetically 40 states eventually vote for the amendment as Ohio's (didn't 10 do so or is it they weren't as strict) or even if 25 states voted this way causing a clear division. Wouldn't that create a situation where the federal gov. would have to step in?

[deh]

Originally Posted by Gibble

I'm sure there are millions that would dissagree

Oh i'm sure.
We really don't have many bars in my town. I live very close to a big city and not too terribly far from Atlantic City.
That's where the strip clubs and gay clubs are and stay. So if i wanna go to a strip club i get off my a$$ drive 20 minutes and go.

[ComputerFix]

Originally Posted by deh

As far as i'm concerned you could take all the bars out of my town and i would care less.

Then its a different value judgement, and one I could hardly fault you for. Clubs generally are a detrement to thier immediate surroundings, no matter the type.

When I first moved here, I went on the club circut, inadvertantly ended up in a gay club. Shoulda known, it was the only clean one where people were just drinking and dancing, not groping and strutting. And we say thier behavior is bad....straight dance clubs nowadays look like clothed orgies (and I am farrrrr from being a prude)

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

When I first moved here, I went on the club circut, inadvertantly ended up in a gay club.

Yeah--and OJ "inadvertantly" got Ron and Nicole's blood all over his car!

[ComputerFix]

Mulder, I wouldn't dance with you then, I'm not gonna now


Interpret that lawyer boy

[ComputerFix]

Originally Posted by deh

Gotchya, but suppose that in the end hypothetically 40 states eventually vote for the amendment as Ohio's (didn't 10 do so or is it they weren't as strict) or even if 25 states voted this way causing a clear division. Wouldn't that create a situation where the federal gov. would have to step in?

It may....

Lets drop the gay part, and I will toss you a hypothetical.

I get married here, go to California, and get in a car crash. My wife has to decide the extent of "heroic measures" used. Problem is, California doesn't like us Arizonans and our values so they don't recognize our marriage (land of fruits and nuts decides only gays can be married, not straight like the AZ law). How quick do you think it will be before the Fed's have to get involved (because it deals with the issue of Arizona law mingling with California law) We are a nation of individual states, but we are a nation.

I believe federal law also says that states can decide how those other state laws are recognized.....

You didn't think this was easy, did ya?

[DNeurococo]

Seems to me like the wheel turns 'round and the same old spoke comes up: discrimination masquerading as "freedom".

During the Civil War, the South insisted on being "free" to hold slaves, and didn't want the Federal Government to interfere.

In the 1960's, the South wanted segregated schools, segregated Motels, and segregated lunch counters. They claimed the Feds were interfering with their "freedom" to run their Motel the way they wanted.

This is just the latest variation: a hotel manager should be able to discriminate against gay couples, under the rubric of "freedom".

Freedom is not unlimited. From day one, this country was organized to respect minority rights, even if it displeased the majority and interfered with their "freedom".

It isn't your "right" to cause hardships to other groups because you don't like their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by DNeurococo

Seems to me like the wheel turns 'round and the same old spoke comes up: discrimination masquerading as "freedom".

During the Civil War, the South insisted on being "free" to hold slaves, and didn't want the Federal Government to interfere.

In the 1960's, the South wanted segregated schools, segregated Motels, and segregated lunch counters. They claimed the Feds were interfering with their "freedom" to run their Motel the way they wanted.

This is just the latest variation: a hotel manager should be able to discriminate against gay couples, under the rubric of "freedom".

Freedom is not unlimited. From day one, this country was organized to respect minority rights, even if it displeased the majority and interfered with their "freedom".

It isn't your "right" to cause hardships to other groups because you don't like their race, religious, or sexual orientation.

Well said

[ComputerFix]

Thats the crux of the problem DN, because by specifying what cannot be a basis there will always be those who use what is not listed. Take that away, and a new group will be picked on....


Soon we will need special laws to prevent us brown haired brown eyed males from being barred because of our eye/hair color, and I think conservatives and liberals alike bring this future closer and closer. Unfortunately, there is no way to legislate "don't be a jerk".

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Gibble

You really are a racist ...

...and people wonder why I won't subscribe to any religion.

If religion makes me as hateful, and ignorant as you are Nipper, I want no part of it.

If your neighbors were bisexual and had a polygamous marraige with orgies in their home every night...how would it affect you? You are still living your life as you choose...why can't they have that same right?

Dear Gibble:

I am no racist and I have FREELY (no pay wanted) shoveled out snow from the walk and dug out a car that belonged to two women teachers who are lesbians and had happened to live around the corner from me. They had a little boy that was born through artificial insemination (neither was married).

My concern was that two women should not have to try to dig out their car.
We talked and our sexual lives never seemed to matter. YOU my friend are already rather nasty and rude and Christ had nothing to do with it. You call people names every time they say what you don't want to hear.

Actually, wild parties at the neighbor's house would keep me awake and I want my rest. And I feel that neighbor's will have some influence on neighborhood children and so will their TEACHERS.

When people keep their values to themselves that is great. When they make it a public spectacle and want Governmental approval of their rights, it becomes my right to say what I believe. Neither they nor you are not ENTITLED to my acceptance of your values. So throw the racist word around if it make you somehow feel superior-----you are not. In fact you only prove my point. Our actions do effect others, so if you don't want my opinion you should not ask for it. And if you don't believe in OPEN discussions you should not participate in them.

[ComputerFix]

To kick up the bigger question, how do we define the line between "good" social policy and policy hiding bigotry?

Economic indicators? (slavery would still be around, that was a real financial blow)
Personal infringement? (so marrying your 12 year old cousin shouldn't be illegal)

[DNeurococo]

C-Fix wrote: "Unfortunately, there is no way to legislate 'don't be a jerk'".

Well, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The law may not be able to force someone to love me, but it can keep them from lynching me."

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

Sometimes you are hearing Joe Sixpack, but that can be the scariest of all.

The most interesting point in this (on the larger public level) is that while there seems to be a great majority of support banning gay marriage, a Constitutional ammendment cannot pass. Most people, according to polling do not support it, even if they vote for the ban in thier state! I think this isn't indicitive of a state/nation conflict, but rather of a conflict of self.

In fact, I saw a little ditty that someone wrote stating their opposition not based on morality, but rather of the drain on the Social Security system due to survivor benifits! What the.....

Most of the time, it is Joe Sixpack that scares me the most


Its more than an irony, it is by design. Consider this, where else can the minority be protected within a contruct based on (though not actual) majority rules?

Bi-polar by design

Which polls are we speaking of. The very same ones that said that Kerry was winning..?

[ComputerFix]

Here is a quote from an ABC news article, polling performed by TNN Intersearch (an independent polling agency). If you are not content with these numbers, feel free to search around for others, all this came down after the State of the Union address in January of this year.

Edited down to provide the numbers you inquired about....

Most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but most also oppose a constitutional amendment to ban it, an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll finds.

[...]

In this ABCNEWS/Washington Post survey, 38 percent of Americans favor amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to marry [...]

That's not an endorsement of same-sex marriages — indeed most, 55 percent, say such marriages should be illegal.[...]

So 55 percent (majority) say such marriages should be illegal, but only 38 percent (not majority) endorsed the idea of a Constitutional (national) amendment stating so.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

So 55 percent (majority) say such marriages should be illegal, but only 38 percent (not majority) endorsed the idea of a Constitutional (national) amendment stating so.

It should be left in the hands of each state, then