posted on April 12, 2004 04:15:27 PM new
Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage
Sat Apr 10, 7:27 PM ET
LOS ANGELES - Most Americans oppose gay marriage and many believe homosexuality is "against God's will," but otherwise consider themselves tolerant of gays, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.
By a margin of 55 to 41 percent, those polled agreed with the statement that "if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be degraded."
About half favored a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, while 42 percent opposed it, according to the poll published Saturday on the newspaper's Web site.
The telephone poll of 1,616 adults around the country was conducted from March 27-30. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Other recent surveys have found at least half of Americans oppose gay marriage, but fewer support amending the Constitution to ban it.
A CBS-New York Times poll last month found only 38 percent saying gay marriage is an "important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution for," and an ABC-Washington Post poll found 54 percent saying the matter should be left to the states.
Only about a quarter of those polled for the Los Angeles Times felt homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry and 38 percent believed they should be allowed to form civil unions. About a third said that neither type of union should be permitted.
While about six in 10 people felt homosexual relationships are "against God's will," a similar percentage felt that legal recognition of same-sex marriages was inevitable.
Sixty percent of those polled described themselves as sympathetic to the gay community. About the same percentage said they would be willing to vote for an openly gay political candidate.
With so many opposed and so many states passing their own admendments, may not need a national admendment.
posted on April 12, 2004 05:20:39 PM new
Without an amendment it only takes one state to allow same sex marriages and all the rest of the states must recognize those marriages performed in that one state.
posted on April 13, 2004 09:46:21 AM new
It has nothing to do with state constitutions. It is the United States Constitution that contains the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Haven't you ever wondered why a marriage done in Las Vegas is recognized in South Carolina ? It has nothing to do with any State Constitution.
The federal amendment Bush proposed was to somehow thwart the Full Faith and Credit clause.
It will only take one state to allow same sex marriage. Then same sex couples just go there and get married and then go home to their state and claim their marriage status.
When the home sate refuses to recognize the marriage, then the Supreme Court gets involved.
For the justices that are against same sex marriage, the trick will be to carve out an exception for marriage in the Full Faith and Credit clause that will not screw up the system of recognition we now have. It will be almost impossible to do.
For the other justices it will be an easy and clear case of enforcing the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Bottom line-- 49 states can outlaw same sex marrige and even pass legislation not to recognize same sex marriages from other states. The one state remaining will do a brisk business marrying same sex couples from the other 49.
The newly married couples will go home, claim their marriage staus just as couples now do that get married in Las Vegas or Reno.
posted on April 13, 2004 09:54:53 AM new
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court can not even initially address the issue of the marriages being same sex. They can only first reach the issue whether the marriage is legal and recognized in the state where the marriage was executed. That's why the San Fransisco and other "city" marriages are of no effect.
Once it is determined that the marriage was lawful in the state where performed, the next issue is whether the other state must recognize the same sex marriage.
posted on April 13, 2004 12:47:43 PM new
You know reamond, you give too little credit to the states and if they fail there will be a national admendment... People are not going to let this marriage abortion alone.
Almost every state is making an admendment...which includes not recognizing same sex marriages from other states... you may hope that goes through... but in the end same sex marriage will fail.
All it will take is for the SC not to hear a same sex case and that will be the end.
posted on April 13, 2004 05:49:33 PM new
The US Constitution is a sacred living document. One of the most important ever written in the world.
It has been altered only 17 times in over 200 years since it was signed.
The gay marriage issue is in no way shape or form worthy of altering this sacred document. Nor is any trend issue worthy of altering the US Constitution.
Nor is President Bush worthy of a legacy of getting this sacred document altered under his "Reign"
posted on April 14, 2004 06:45:34 AM newYou know reamond, you give too little credit to the states
It's got nothing to do with me - it is the United States Constitution that demands that states honor the contracts from other states.
And I don't have a clue what you're talking about when you say that these state constitutions and state amendments will somehow trump the US Constitution.
Sorry to break this to you 12, but the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no state or local law, state constitution, ordinance, government acts, etc., may offend the Constitution.
Again, 49 states can ban same sex marriages and pass laws not to recognize same sex marriages from other states, and the US Supreme Court will hear the case of same sex couples lawfully married in the 50th state that allows same sex marriages.
SC's courts are not needed to hear the cases.
These state's rights arguments have been used since the Civil War and have never found any credence in the law.
Having 50 independent states with no unifying laws or institutions is a recipe for chaos.
posted on April 14, 2004 07:39:53 AM new
In this case you will be wrong reamond... watch and see.
If what you are saying is true, then once again you are saying that the sate legislatures do not know what they are doing and give no credit to them....
Explain why in state you have to be 21 to get married and another 18?
same difference... 49 states you have to be of different sexes, one state you can be both....
Your reasoning doesn't hold water in all instances, you are trying to make a blanket from swiss cheese.
posted on April 14, 2004 07:48:54 AM newExplain why in state you have to be 21 to get married and another 18? same difference... 49 states you have to be of different sexes, one state you can be both....
You've just proved Reamond's point, 12pole. If a couple are married in one state at the age of 18 and then move to a state where the age for marriage is 21, their marriage is recognized & accepted, they don't suddenly become "unmarried."
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 14, 2004 08:48:57 AM new
That is because the states hadn't placed in their laws they wouldn't recognize anyone under 21's marriage, as they are doing in their admendments.
Also until several years ago, each state had their own drinking age... you could not go to any state and drink, just because you were of age in your state...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 14, 2004 10:40 AM ]
posted on April 14, 2004 10:56:23 AM new
Whatever happened to the proposal for creating some kind of "civil contract" between ANY two people, that can be recognized under the law, with all the same rights and priviledges, essentially comparable to being married, but not calling it marriage?
Leave marriage as a RELIGIOUS tradition for those who choose it. Give a CIVIL contract for those who want one of those. Legally, they will have the same rights, but for those who choose the marriage route, that is an option.
Make marriage for a man & woman for life.
Make a civil union for ANY two people (Yes, ANY two with consideration to age of consent), and give it an expiration date of 5 or 10 years.
This of what this would do to the divorce rate!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 14, 2004 11:18:41 AM new
Also until several years ago, each state had their own drinking age... you could not go to any state and drink, just because you were of age in your state...
This was true if you lived in state A where the drinking age was 18 but went to state B where the drinking age was 21. If you lived in state B and went to state A you would have been allowed to drink.
Speaking of legal ages:
You need to be 21 to drink in all states now, but are considered an adult at age 18. You can drive, vote, serve in the military and marry at 18. Consider two 19 year olds getting married and can not even drink at their own wedding...
Why not consider putting a minimum age on marriage. Perhaps this would lower the divorce rate.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on April 14, 2004 11:30:52 AM new
You make a good point, Replay. Shouldn't all marriages be civil unions? Death-do-us-part marriages don't work anymore, whether they're religious based or not. Why does everyone want to hold on to this sacrament when it rarely works for a lifetime? Are you all just stuck on tradition?
posted on April 14, 2004 11:38:36 AM newThat is because the states hadn't placed in their laws they wouldn't recognize anyone under 21's marriage, as they are doing in their admendments.
No, it is because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution automatically caused the recognition of marriages performed in another state.
There is no law that says my state drivers license is good in all 50 states, but I can drive in all with one state license. The same applies to marriage licenses.
you are saying that the sate legislatures do not know what they are doing
The state legislatures are paying lip service to anti-gay constituents and know that what they are doing will not pass muster Constitutional muster. They know full well that if only one state allows same sex marriage, they will have to recognize same sex marriages regardless of any laws they have passed.
Why do you think Bush wanted to get an Amendment to the Constitution ? He wanted the issue out of the Supreme Court's hands.
posted on April 14, 2004 11:48:23 AM new
Marriages are Civil Unions or better put- civil contracts. You don't need clergy to officiate a marriage.
The "religious" aspect of marriage has no standing in law other than authorized clergy can sign a marriage license, but so can many other civil servants.
A marriage license hasn't been a purely religious instrument in centuries.
I think many people are against same sex marriages because they mistakenly think that churches must perform marriages for them if the state licenses it.
posted on April 14, 2004 06:05:42 PM new
That was essentialy my point. There are two different reasons for existing together.
Marriage
It's a religious thing. Leave the specifics up to the individual religions. In the Christian world, it's between a man and a woman for life. If you're a Mormon, you can have many wives. It's seperation of Church & State. Let the Mormons do it their own way and keep the state out of it.
Civil Unions.
For heterosexual couples who don't go in for religion or who want an expiration date on their "marriage". This is what the homosexuals would do. For Mothers & Daughters and 1st cousins as well if you want.
If you prefer to think of the current marriage license as a civil contract, then you would have to treat it like a real contract and allow both parties freedom to negotiate specific terms. As it is, this isn't allowed. Therefore, this is NOT a civil union or even really a contract. It's just another way for the state to tax you, and that's pretty much all it is, no better than a license on a vending machine.
Gay marriage? Phphphpt! It's REGULAR marriage that needs an overhaul. Keep the religion and the states seperate- have TWO procedures!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 14, 2004 06:08:12 PM new
"against same sex marriages because they mistakenly think that churches must perform marriages for them if the state licenses"
1) Churches must perform marriages.
2) Marriage is not a job of the state.
3) The state has no right to license churches.
There's no "mistakenly" about it.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 14, 2004 08:12:26 PM new1) Churches must perform marriages.
Wrong. A judge or even a mayor can perform marriages. They do it all the time. There is no civil law that says you must be married through a relgious ceremony.
2) Marriage is not a job of the state.
It is the state that gives legal sanction to marriages. A marriage can not even occur via a religious ceremony without a valid state marriage license.
3) The state has no right to license churches.
It doesn't, but it does in effect license clergy who wish to finalize a marriage license.
posted on April 14, 2004 08:56:22 PM new
I'm aware of all that. But you're still wrong. Certainly you can be married by the government, and yes, you need a marriage license from the state, but that doesn't make it REAL.
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. I don't care what you or the US Government has to say about it. "... These Two Be Joined Together In Holy Matrimony..."
That's why the Civil Union argument holds up. It's the perfect solution for everyone.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 15, 2004 03:15:45 AM new
Reamond your reasoning is flawed, I do believe that if the States "handle" it, their laws will remain and the SC will refuse to hear any case brought to them...
posted on April 15, 2004 07:45:54 AM new
Well 12, I can't guarantee a win for same sex marriages in the SC, but I do guarantee that if 1 or several states allow same sex marriages, the SC will have to hear the case(s) and make a decision as soon as an out of state couple marries and returns to their home state that will not recognize the marriage.
It is not just simply a matter of not recognizing the marriage. Marriage also includes certain government and private entitlements that would be denied if the marriage is not recognized.
Just filing income taxes as a married couple would trigger a SC case.
PS-- in another post above I mistakenly thought that when 12 used the term SC, you were refering to South Carolina. That may cause confusion in interpreting my response.
posted on April 15, 2004 07:55:45 AM newCertainly you can be married by the government, and yes, you need a marriage license from the state, but that doesn't make it REAL.
The recognition and license by the state is in fact the ONLY thing that makes a marrisge REAL. You can have as many religious marriage cermonies as you want,but if the state doesn't recognize the marriage, for all earthly purposes, the marriage doesn't exist.
If you were brought to court and given to testify against someone you claimed as your wedded spouse but that state did not recognize your marriage, you would be compelled to testify.
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. I don't care what you or the US Government has to say about it. "... These Two Be Joined Together In Holy Matrimony..."
No it is not a strictly religious ceremony. It is only a religious ceremnoy if the couple wants it to be.
The couple can have whatever "vows" they want stated with absolutely no christian or other religious references.
You can have Wiccan marriage rights, or Hindu, or Muslim, or no religious statements or vows at all.
Marriage is a religious ceremony only for those who want it to be.
Did you really think that everyone in the United States that gets married does so with a judaeo-christian ceremony ?
posted on April 15, 2004 08:33:09 AM new
"Did you really think that everyone in the United States that gets married does so with a judaeo-christian ceremony ?"
'Course not. If you actually READ my posts, you'll see I mentioned the Mormons and polygamy in a previous posting. Specifics differ between which religion you choose, but marriage has ALWAYS been for religious purposes. What does the state care who you live with?
As far as I am aware, some things are pretty much standard in all the major religions. Marriage was created as a religious ceremony. Marriage is intended for life. Marriage is intended for a man and a woman.
Anything else is purely a modern invention.
I did not say that a religious marriage ONLY would hold up in court. Anyone with any sense is going to get a legal license too. But the license is only a technicality in the eyes of God.
My bottom line is that the government should never have gotten involved in the first place regulating marriages. Seperation of Church & State!!!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 15, 2004 09:22:09 AM newMy bottom line is that the government should never have gotten involved in the first place regulating marriages.
The government doesn't regulate a "marriage" unless you want them too.
You don't have to file your taxes as a married couple, your spouse doesn't have to receive your pension benefits should you die, you can testify against your spouse when ordered to by the courts, you can be refused entry to your spouse at the hospital, you can be denied the right to discern the disposition of your deceased spouse's remains, etc..
Marriage has been a secular right in the western world for centuries. In fact, there is actually no benefits bestowed on a "religious" marriage as compared to a secular marriage. In the eyes of the law and for all intents and purposes theyare the same.
Same sex marriages would be no more religious than the couple and their religious sect would allow it to be.
In the law, marriage is a civil act and the religious aspect of it, if it exists at all, is of no consequence at law, nor of any consequence for public policy.
If the state allows same sex marriages, any and all churches can refuse to recognize or perform the marriages, and outside any rights and priveleges of marriage in the church, the refusal to recognize by the church really have no effect.
There is no religious issue to be parsed in the same sex marriage arguments.
Marriage is only a religious act for couples who want it to be, but the state could care less if you're married by clergy or the town mayor, and the state could care less what your vows say.
Fearing the Federal Marriage Amendment defining the institution as between one man and one woman may die in committee, traditional-values activists are urging their constituents to contract their members of Congress and U.S. senators and urge them to act on the proposal.
"My friends, we are at a crisis moment on Capitol Hill on the marriage issue. Many members of Congress report they are hearing more from the pro-homosexual marriage crowd than they are hearing from those of us who believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman," wrote Gary Bauer of American Values.
After homosexual "marriage" was given legal legitimacy in jurisdictions across the nation this year, President Bush signaled his support for amending the U.S. Constitution.
In a February 24 speech, Bush said, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
"Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."
But members of Congress have been less than enthused about taking action on such a controversial amendment in an election year. Constitutional amendments must be OK'd by two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and obtain ratification by three-quarters of the states.
"Dying in committee accomplishes exactly what those who support homosexual marriage want," said Don Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association, in his appeal. "They will leave it to an un-elected judge to declare homosexual marriage legal. That will keep senators and representatives from having to go on record for or against, which is exactly what they want."
AFA claims the supporters of the amendment are "running scared," quoting one lawmaker as saying, "If we talk about same-sex relationships or homosexuality we look mean-spirited. It has been decided that we take the high road and only talk about traditional marriage being the cornerstone of civilization. That is the way we will go."
David Crowe of Restore America appealed to supporters via e-mail:
"[The prospect of the bill dying] is unthinkable! If we fail to respond we are saying this issue is not that important and we will have misapprehended the most important issue in modern history."
Crowe asked his constituents to send "an unmistakable message to our seemingly weak-kneed congressman and senators."
Some conservatives have argued marriage is not an issue the federal government should take up, saying each state should decide what is permissible.
posted on April 20, 2004 10:33:24 AM new
The majority of people do not want a federal admendment, they trust their state governments to do the right thing... however the first lawsuit from a state that allows gay marriage is brought about... you will see a quick resurgence of this admendment.
I personally don't think there ever will be a lawsuit... time will tell.
posted on April 21, 2004 03:26:11 AM new
Didn't Mass say they would not marry anyone from a state that didn't recognize same sex marriages?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
