Gay Marriage

The place to discuss issues being debated in the 2009-2010 school year -- briefs, legislation and debate.

Moderator: Officers

BeWang

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by BeWang »

Your amendment seems to contradict the spirit of the bill. What the original bill does is remove federal restrictions on marriage. So if one gets a same sex marriage in Massachusetts, Texas is forced to recognize it, the Full faith and credit clause mandates that other states honor legal documents and ceremonies of other states. Texas might not allow homosexuals to marry other homosexuals, but if they get a marriage in a state where it is legal, Texas must treat them as a married couple.
He's not really trying to force a (unconstitutional) stance on the states, he's basically interpreting the constitution and congressionally repealing the offending law.

My own opinion is that the government should stay out of marriage entirely. I'm fine with civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships, primarily because it would promote more stable environments for the children. However, marriage is religious, and as such, it should not be acknowledged by the federal government. In short, If you want a marriage, go to the church. If you want a civil union, go to the government.
mlind

Re: Gay Marriage

Post by mlind »

A "civil union" is basically another term for "marriage." Marriage isn't a religious institution, and to give everyone civil unions would be to surrender the word to the Christian right and the other religious factions that are claiming ownership over the word.

Marriage comes from the Latin word "maritus," which means "lover." That shows that not only does the institution predate Christianity, but a lot of people are claiming ownership of a word that comes from a language that was used by a society that was, for most (and arguably all) of its history, not Christian.
Locked