VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 09, 01:25:16am [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wednesday, February 25, 09:53:34pm
Author: ST
Author Host/IP: 12-222-64-101.client.insightBB.com / 12.222.64.101
Subject: NYT on homosexual marriage

The New York Times February 25 editorial begins with the following: "With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution."

I think that statement is a bit hyperbolic. Prohibition of homosexual marriage is not radical; it is a mainstream stance. Ideally, the amendment would not be necessary. The problem is the Massachusetts state Supreme Court's decision requiring Massachusetts to recognize homosexual marriages. There is legitimate concern the federal courts (or the Supreme Court) would declare that states must recognize homosexual marriages. The fact that San Francisco city officials are flagrantly violating California state law and issuing "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples is also a concern.

Ideally, no amendment would be needed, but an activist judiciary has made it necessary for the issue of homosexual marriage to be settled Constitutional law.

The amendment "takes away" no rights because no state in the Union currently recognizes same-sex marriages.

That said, I do not support the amendment as currently written because it takes away the right of the states to make the decision for themselves. If the people of a state, though their elected representatives, want to recognize homosexual marriages they should be able to do so providing that religious liberty is protected. The Federal Marriage Amendment should be rejected, replaced with a different version that denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages but protects the right of the states to make their own decision on the matter. This, of course, would mean that no state would be required to, under the "full faith and credit" clause, recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.