Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
So, should gays be allowed to get married? Sounds like a pretty straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. You either think it's okay or you don't. But the issue of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage throws a kink in it. Less than 30 times has our Constitution been amended - in more than 200 years. And this debate has raised the question of whether the federal government should even be involved in who can, or can't, get married. There are even some candidates who oppose gay marriage, but also oppose a constitutional amendment for that very reason. Many say leave it up to the individual states, but that raises another question. Does one state opposed to gay marriage have to honor the legal rights of a gay couple married in a state where gay marriage is allowed?
Users that have shown interest in this issue
Candidate Responses
Asked in 2003 whether gay marriage is inevitable, said: "I'm not sure. I think it probably is." In that same interview with Fox News, Biden added, "We're going to go through a process here that is necessary for this nation in terms of how we deal with the rights and recognition of gay unions. And I don't think that gets settled by a constitutional amendment. It makes it more divisive."
Although opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Biden voted in 1996 in favor of Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex marriage under federal law.
Would let states decide. Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Clinton has come out against gay marriage, but does support civil unions. However, she has said that if New York passed legislation allowing gay marriage, she would not oppose it.
Dodd opposed the constitutional amendment, although he says he supports civil unions and not gay marriage.
In a 2007 interview when asked the difference between the two, Dodd said, "I don't think probably much in people's minds. If you're allowing that, all the protections you have there, you've covered it."
Edwards has said in several interviews he supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. However he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Edwards said, "Civil Unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes. But it's a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven't yet got across that bridge."
Kucinich opposed a law allowing same-sex marriage when he ran for Congress in 1996. His position has changed and he now supports gay marriage and opposes the constitutional amendment banning it.
"And with respect to those who happen to be gay, [filtered word], bisexual, transgendered, these are God's children," he said on CNN's Paula Zahn show in 2007. "They should have the same rights. Our constitution does not provide any - for any differences to be established.
I don't care about gays
I don't care about gays getting married considering how many people get married then divorced and don't consider any marriage help since divorce is the easy way out maybe those people who think gays shouldn't get married should worry about their own marriages first.
I hope one day we look back
I hope one day we look back on this the same way we now look back on civil rights for black people. As americans we're given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It shouldn't be a matter of our gender, sexual orientation, race or creed.
The only thing I can think of where same-sex marriages would matter is with adoption, there's proof that a child will grow up better with a mother & father as opposed to two mothers or two fathers. Still, I'd take a good same sex couple over a poor male/female couple. and since when is a couple seeking to adopt a bad thing?
The most violent element in society is ignorance. - Emma Goldman
Federations involvement in Gay Marriages
My personl opinion is; Marriage should be between two of opposit sexes.
But I don't think it is right for me to bind my personal preference on the rest of the population.
Gay marriags and "civil unions" do not violate me in any way except my personal opinion.
The only concern I have about any marriage it's legal duribility.
The only ferderal issue would be acceptance recogniztion acrosse borders of sam sex marriages. I would vote in favor of a federal mandate to recognized the practice but only expect states to accept or comply with the practice.
Tolerance for the Sake of Tolerance
A constitutional ban is impropper. Do not amend the constitution for a societal choice like that, it is lazy and takes responsibility away from the citizens, which is destructive. The Constitution was amended to allow blacks to vote because the Constitution specifically did not allow blacks to vote. That was an error that needed to be fixed.
I think that marriage should not be regulated by the state. I am not a big fan of homosexual marriage as that kind of activity is linked in a couple historical instances with the fall of great societies. When the morals get so corrupted that there is tolerance for the sake of tolerance we will have problems, but that is a societal issue, not governmental. It is just my view of marriage and I feel that it is just as valid as any because there is no evidence set in stone that any one is absolutely correct.