Rick Perry Wants You - to Federally define marriage as between a man and a woman

DeletedUser

(( This discussion is about U.S. governance. However, many of it applies to similar political machinations happening in other countries. If you are from one of those other countries, by all means provide your insights into an attack on your constitutions / bill of rights ))

At present individual states can determine, through democratic vote, whether to allow same-sex marriage.

Rick Perry is the frontrunner for the GOP (Republican Party) Presidential candidacy. Rick Perry's stance on same sex marriage has been consistent, despite the delivery of his message being somewhat dodgy. Essentially, he states that the U.S. Constitution should include an amendment defining marriage as that of a man and a woman. I.e., have same-sex marriage be Federally outlawed. This would, in effect, cause every states' decisions to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

So, let's hear your thoughts...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I thought Bush already tried this but couldn't get the backing for it he needed. If they really want less government control, this is definitely not the way to go about it. I see no reason why the government (federal or state) should have any say in who people want to spend their lives with.
 

DeletedUser

While Rick Perry can think that way I believe that would be a case of the federal government violating a right that should go to the states (not that that sort of violation doesn't happen regularly already). Although it would present an easy solution it is best that each state make the decision as the constitution does not mention marriage it would have to be a right that falls to individuals or the state.

I believe the state should be the arbitrator here since giving homosexual couples the same tax and governmental benefits as heterosexual couples is a touchy issue.
 

DeletedUser

Wrong thread, or could you explain your invocation of Roe vs Wade:D?

I told you that all these similarly named threads would be confusing.
 

DeletedUser

Hehe, was my error. Responded to this thread whilst on the phone with someone. I deleted the post.
 

DeletedUser

lafittejean said:
I believe the state should be the arbitrator here since giving homosexual couples the same tax and governmental benefits as heterosexual couples is a touchy issue.
Click to expand...
Why is it a touchy issue? Because of prejudice? Should we leave the rights of women and minorities to the States because it's a touchy issue?
 

DeletedUser

No, things should be left to the state because the issue wasn't originally in the scope of the Federal government's power. Give me something from the Constitution that demonstrates otherwise.

The rights of woman and minorities however are respective to the bill of rights as far as those rights outlined in those amendments. There is nothing regarding marriage, although yes there would be unfortunate circumstances in some states running into the 20th century where minorities marrying someone white would be prohibited. A homosexual regarding their status as one only has their right to declare themselves as one (a homosexual) protected by the constitution.

You are arguing the Federal government intervene because it's the "right thing to do". Well, I don't believe that even if it's "the right thing to do" that the Feds should address an issue like marriage.
 

DeletedUser

lafittejean said:
No, things should be left to the state because the issue wasn't originally in the scope of the Federal government's power. Give me something from the Constitution that demonstrates otherwise.
Click to expand...

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." ~ 19th Amendment <click here>

It has already been clearly demonstrated homosexuality is not a "social choice," but physio and biological, homosexual is as much a "sex" as male and female <click here>.

lafittejean said:
There is nothing regarding marriage, although yes there would be unfortunate circumstances in some states running into the 20th century where minorities marrying someone white would be prohibited. A homosexual regarding their status as one only has their right to declare themselves as one (a homosexual) protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...
So your argument is, minorities marrying other minorities was denied in the past because marriage isn't stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, and therefore it should remain not stipulated in the U.S. Constitution? Isn't that circular reasoning?

Let's be clear, homosexuality is a minority. Equality of Man is stipulated int he U.S. Constitution, and causes and concerns addressing equality have been addressed in the U.S. Constitution specifically because of State or individual distortions of intent.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~ Bill of Rights

lafittejean said:
You are arguing the Federal government intervene because it's the "right thing to do". Well, I don't believe that even if it's "the right thing to do" that the Feds should address an issue like marriage.
Click to expand...
So then, you argue it's okay to do so when it's the "wrong thing to do?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I thought we had the "constitutional" right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Seems to me that includes homosexuals wanting to get married and should therefore trump anything the state or federal governments could impose against gay marriage.
 

DeletedUser

iggyberto said:
I thought we had the "constitutional" right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Seems to me that includes homosexuals wanting to get married and should therefore trump anything the state or federal governments could impose against gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, umm, that kinda argument gets sticky. What if my pursuits in happiness included having intercourse with animals? What if my liberties included urinating in public, running about naked, or dancing in the highway? What if the right to life constituted forcing a woman to go to term with a fetus; one initiated by rape, or one that endangers the life of the woman? Or what if we did not participate in war precisely because we would be taking life?

It's the definitions associated with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that is always at question, which is probably why it was included in the Declaration of Independence, but not the Constitution or it's accompanying Bill of Rights.

Rhetoric is good to present ideals, but it's rarely applicable without clearly defined boundaries.
 

DeletedUser

So is marriage between transgenders also "against the law". Transgender and "normal". Transvestites?

All this has religious undertones, but you have been able to marry outside the church for a long time. Marriages are conducted by the justice of the peace every day.

If you want to "define" marriage, do it between two humans. If your afraid of "dog-marriages".

And theses religion chompers already have it their way, nobody can force a church to marry you! They just want to enforce their beliefs on the rest of society and save themselves the embarrassment when they deny somebody to get married under their roof.
Why anybody would like to get married in these hateful, bigoted and divisive institutions are beyond me.
 

DeletedUser29971

First of all This is not an issue on right or wrong or religion or non religion even though everyone assumes it must be and has made it.

The issue is that the word MARRIAGE means according to Websters dictionary:

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."


Why cant they come up with a new word?

anyone else think Hellstromm has a thing for rick perry?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser5046

If transgender marriage is against the law, then why did they allow people to get into surgeries such as that? If the government made the decision to make same gender marriage legal, not everyone will be happy. Especially the conservative religions which are all for man-woman relationship.
 

DeletedUser

blaser11981 said:
First of all This is not an issue on right or wrong or religion or non religion even though everyone assumes it must be and has made it.

The issue is that the word MARRIAGE means according to Websters dictionary:

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."


Why cant they come up with a new word?
Click to expand...
Hoho, you lied!

Your partial quote did not come from Webster's dictionary, it came from Dictionary.com <click here>, which obtained the definition from the American Psychological Association (APA), who unanimously (157-0) endorsed same-sex marriage <click here>.

Oh, and when I indicated, "partial," it's because you conveniently left out the parts of the dictionary's definition that disagreed with your claim:

  • a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
  • b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
As to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, the definition differs substantially from what you wrote <click here> and also includes a reference to same sex marriage:

  • a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
  • a (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
  • b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
  • c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
As to other dictionaries I encountered, all modern dictionaries included references to same sex or provide a gender-neutral definition. I also checked other Webster's dictionaries, all of which do not present the wording posted above and either include a reference to same sex marriage, or define marriage as a union of two persons. In fact, even the Webster's Dictionary that was written in 1913 includes, "4. Any intimate or close union."

Below are two other Webster's dictionaries, both of which indicate same sex marriage:

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 <click here>
Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary <click here>​

So, blaser11981, I have no issue with you posing false claims. Just be aware, you'll be called out on it. ;)

Oh, and as for Rick Perry? Nah, he's just the GOP frontrunner right now and he has so much dirt on him that I thought it would be fun to point out just seven of his more prominent stances (of course, you likely already knew that and was just being facetious).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top