Same sex marriage

[gr8fl4porsche]

Yesterday Missouri voters approved a constitutional ammendment by a 70-30 margin that adds the following verbage to the Missouri State Constitution:

"That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman"

Missouri already has laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman - the vote simply added the language to the MO Constitution to help defend against future litigation which could state that the current laws defining marriage were unconstitutional.


Apparently 4 other states have passed similar ammendments and 9 other states have it on the ballot this year.

I figured from taking my own personal opinion poll that people do not care what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them - quess I was wrong.

[Superman]

Wake up Randy, and smell the coffee. For some people, telling others how to behave is what it's all about. Those people call themselves "conservatives" and they think they are promoting "freedom." I guess they don't use dictionaries.

And the national debate you've been hearing about (if they have newspapers in the South, then you could have read about it too), is about whether the Federal government should even PERMIT states to sanction same-sex marriages. If the Klingons have their way, Missouri's law will be be the same in every state.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I figured from taking my own personal opinion poll that people do not care what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them - quess I was wrong.

Check out the "Faith-based Legislation" thread and you'll see what the NASCAR squad thinks about what other people do....

[turbo6bar]

In 2000, Bush won Missouri 51% to 47% for Gore. So, with voters giving a 71-29 majority, I infer Democrats obviously supported this change in the Constitution, or the Democrats simply did not vote.

Do Democrats know the meaning of "freedom?"
Jurgen

[widebody911]

I don't understand the objections to same-sex marriage, or homosexual in general. If two guys in St Louis are gettin' it on, WTF does it matter to Bubba in Bilgewater, Missoura? Seriously. It's a behavious of which they're vaguely aware, doesn't affect them physically, soporifically, visually or economically. Unless someone told them about it, they wouldn't even know it was happening. Yet they're so bent out of shape about it they have to amend the constitution.

But for some reason, it's the liberals that are whacko, because they don't care and want to let them be.

[id10t]

Be easier to keep religion and sex out of "legal marriage". "Legal marriage" should be a legal bond between 2 people, giving each one specific rights and responsibilities. Gender and/or sexual preference shouldn't matter.

[island911]

Why just 'between 2 people? That wouldn't be very liberal, now would it?

Why not let marriage be between three people, a dog & two cats?

The thing is, if you don't understand the societal stabilizing effect of marriage between one man & one woman then you really can only make a glib, baseless decision on the topic.

[widebody911]

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage - sex is never the same after marriage.

(thank you, I'll be here all week - try the salmon)

[lendaddy]

Legislation promoting marriage has existed in ourt country since the beginning. Why? Because society is better when the citizens operate in a family setting. Mom & Dad sitting at the dinner table teaching the kids, sharing responsability, life lessons, etc... It makes for better citizens. Now if you want to argue that, good luck but I will listen. So if we accept that Americans have decided that it is beneficial to promote "families" we can move on to the next matter here.

If you allow marriage to mean whatever you want, the idea is cheapened and thus it's affect is lesser. Soon you will have friends getting married just for the benefits (health coverage, tax issues, etc..). Yes I am aware that this already happenes to some degree (see Clintons). But in general, a "family" still means something special and has the desired social effect. Is this something the government has any business being involved in? I could go both ways, but it should be at the state level(ohhh I disagree with Bush!) regardless. Basically it is social engineering via legislation(which I'm against) and is the type of thing the citizens should decide regionally and thus far they have. Can't get the rest of the citizens in your state to allow it, then you need to sell your argument better before the next vote. This is not a civil rights issue, not in the least. States make these kinds of laws all the time based on the desires of their constituents.

One more thing, the government wants you to marry and have kids (read make more taxpayers), which is one of the reasons for the definition.

I couldn't care less if gays want to live together/whatever, but allowing them to marry is up to the voters. Sell your case to the people and it will happen.

[djmcmath]

Len, I couldn't have said it better, but I will add an example.

Let's say that this whole "same sex legal-marriage" thing goes all the way through. The military buys into it, and I decide "What the heck," and I marry my room-mate. Instantly, we get paid extra money for being married. Tax benefits are kind of nice, too. Oh, and if we're on different boats (which we are), then we get separation allowances, too.

Two things have just occurred:
1 - We've cheapened the institution of marriage. As Len and Island point out, the societal effects of stable families are not in dispute. My act of having "married" my room-mate, despite the fact that we never intend to have kids or raise a family, have no particular romantic association, etc. makes the term "marriage" meaningless.
2 - In getting married, we're sucking more money out of the system for no ultimate change in status. That money comes out of an already strapped budget that continues to get cut, for an institution that does not meet the intent (thought it meets the letter) of the pay or tax benefits.

I could care less if my neighbor wants to get it on with his room-mate. I could care less if one of my sailors wants to get it on with his room-mate -- as long as his room-mate also isn't one of my sailors (frat rules). But when they attempt to redefine "marriage" to mean something it's never meant, specifically for the legal benefits, I draw the line.


Dan

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by djmcmath
We've cheapened the institution of marriage.

Sorry, a 40% divorce rate has already done that. Try again.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by djmcmath
But when they attempt to redefine "marriage" to mean something it's never meant, specifically for the legal benefits, I draw the line.

And marriage has never been used purely for the legal benefits, has it? Noo, that would never happen...

Alternately, I'd say the system discriminates against single people - why should you get more money just because you're married? Is the value of your work suddenly better? Yeah, right. And extra pay just because you're separated from your hunny-bunny? Puhlease. You should have your pay docked in thanks for getting away from the ball-and-chain

In the corporate environment, I'd say marriage is a liability - married people are always having to take time off to deal with the kids/spouse. Single guys can work late hours and weekends without having the excuse of taking the kids to soccer practice, the doctor, or taking the wife to the vet, etc. And don't get me started on the whole maternity thing...

[island911]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Sorry, a 40% divorce rate has already done that. Try again.

so then at 40% divorce rate, mariage can be cheapened no more? c'mon.

[lendaddy]

You miss the point Blue. We would agree the divorce rate is a problem. But the existance of a burning house doesn't make it ok to throw gas on it either. What would marriage mean if you can do what we said (marry anyone for government benefits). Could you even give a definition? How would you enforce it? Would you care? This is what I'm saying. With healthcare getting more expensive, in 10 years you'de be hard pressed to find anyone that wasn't married as it would be foolish not to. Hence the institution is meaningless. Is that a big deal? Hey, lets have a vote

[BlueSkyJaunte]

My point is that marriage being "cheapened" is completely subjective.

Please explain who will be harmed by same-sex marriage. Use silly things like numbers and legitimate statistics.

[lendaddy]

"why should you get more money just because you're married?"

Exactly! Why should you get more money for having kids? I'm with ya my man. Here in lies the problem, we have let government get so deep into our lives that we cannot escape. Given the choice I would get the Federal government out of all this stuff.

[island911]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
My point is that marriage being "cheapened" is completely subjective.

Please explain who will be harmed by same-sex marriage. Use silly things like numbers and legitimate statistics.

We don't need to imagine what could be the harm . . .Take a look at what happened in Norway & Sweden.

Haven't we had this conversation before? . .I think we have.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by island911
Haven't we had this conversation before? . .I think we have.

Yes, we have. But we just can't resist when somebody drags that ol' skeleton back out of the closet, can we?

BTW, please elucidate on our fine Scandinavian friends' problems?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by island911
We don't need to imagine what could be the harm . . .Take a look at what happened in Norway & Sweden.


I missed it - what happened? Is this the origin of lutefisk?

[island911]

Among other striking things, the indifference to marriage was one of them I saw over there.

Here is one article on the subject. (first googled)

Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.