I donât view threads in the 'threaded' view (I know many of you do), so apologies if this reply hits the wrong person.
What Occhidiangela was getting at, and a problem that I have personally, is the desire to federalize these laws. I am unsure as to what my biggest objection to the proposed Gay Marriage amendment is. It is a toss up between 3 things. In no particular order, I think the question of gay marriage is a state issue, I donât think government should be involved in contracts between individuals, and the wording of the amendment seems to preclude civil unions entirely (this is under dispute).
As Milton Friedman said, "[T]he greatest threat to human freedom, is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government, or anyone else.".
With the different jurisdictions throughout the several states, people were always free to vote with their feet. If you didnât' like city laws, you could move to a different city. Didn't like the laws in your state, there were several others available. However, once power is concentrated at the federal level, as it would be with the proposed amendment, there would be no escaping the power that the federal government would wield over marriage. The federalist style government, among other things, was designed to separate those powers, and prevent the concentration of power.
It's been stated well enough in this thread already, but I'd prefer government to be involved in as little as possible. Marriage is not high on the priority list. The Preamble, " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.". I donât see the State's recognition of marriage furthering any of those goals. Domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, securing liberty? Where does marriage fit in?
The amendment that Bush is endorsing is only 2 sentences long, but is under much scrutiny. Put forward by congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, it reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
The first sentence clearly defines marriage as the union between one man, and one woman. But it may also forbid civil unions between same-sex couples. The courts would then have to interpret what the intent of the word "marriage" in the amendment meant. If they construed it to mean the idea of unions per se, it may forbid those as well. The "legal incidents" clause of the second sentence can be interpreted to ban any type of civil union at the state level between same-sex couples as well. So while the proponents of the amendment may claim that it only legislates marriage, and not civil unions, the courts could see otherwise.
Based on those reasons, I am against this amendment.
***
"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." â Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776
What Occhidiangela was getting at, and a problem that I have personally, is the desire to federalize these laws. I am unsure as to what my biggest objection to the proposed Gay Marriage amendment is. It is a toss up between 3 things. In no particular order, I think the question of gay marriage is a state issue, I donât think government should be involved in contracts between individuals, and the wording of the amendment seems to preclude civil unions entirely (this is under dispute).
As Milton Friedman said, "[T]he greatest threat to human freedom, is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government, or anyone else.".
With the different jurisdictions throughout the several states, people were always free to vote with their feet. If you didnât' like city laws, you could move to a different city. Didn't like the laws in your state, there were several others available. However, once power is concentrated at the federal level, as it would be with the proposed amendment, there would be no escaping the power that the federal government would wield over marriage. The federalist style government, among other things, was designed to separate those powers, and prevent the concentration of power.
It's been stated well enough in this thread already, but I'd prefer government to be involved in as little as possible. Marriage is not high on the priority list. The Preamble, " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.". I donât see the State's recognition of marriage furthering any of those goals. Domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, securing liberty? Where does marriage fit in?
The amendment that Bush is endorsing is only 2 sentences long, but is under much scrutiny. Put forward by congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, it reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
The first sentence clearly defines marriage as the union between one man, and one woman. But it may also forbid civil unions between same-sex couples. The courts would then have to interpret what the intent of the word "marriage" in the amendment meant. If they construed it to mean the idea of unions per se, it may forbid those as well. The "legal incidents" clause of the second sentence can be interpreted to ban any type of civil union at the state level between same-sex couples as well. So while the proponents of the amendment may claim that it only legislates marriage, and not civil unions, the courts could see otherwise.
Based on those reasons, I am against this amendment.
***
"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." â Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776