The gay amendment
 

Pat will love this...

South Carolina seeks to make amendments to either it's State constitution or to it's laws to more clearly define marriage and prohibit same-sex unions.

I think it's a waste of effort and money, since we already have a same-sex prohibition on the books. But hey, it's an election year and politicians have to be doing something, right?


Here is the original SC Code:

The amendment changes the wording, but it pretty much states the same thing and adds parts about not extending the legal rights of marriage to such unions.

Here is the amendment:

And, just to get things rolling, here is some more commentary:


I tend to agree that this is driven by their desire for "married" benifits such as taxation as a family, eligibility for insurance, etc. I agree because these are the most frequent issues brought up in news coverage of the debate.

But to the average voter, I think this is about more than money and benifits. (In reality, I don't think letting them "marry" and get spousal benifits would cause a bit of harm to government programs or raise our taxes.) To the average voter, I believe this is more about acceptance of a lifestyle that many view as immoral.

This country was founded by people who believed in God, and who had conservative values. But it was also founded as a place of religious freedom. And with true religious freedom comes the freedom to choose any other religion or no religion. That freedom brings into play not only God and Jesus, but Moses, Budda, Allah, Ganesha, Shiva, and others not appearing in this episode.

So are we a country that is still "one nation under God" as founded? I guess not. Maybe "one nation under Gods". Still, I am not aware of a single religion that is accepting of homosexual unions. This means the morality of every major religion deems "marriage" as 1m + 1f.

So are we (as a country) a moral people? I like to believe so.

Should we be tolerant of homosexuals? Probably. Sure. Why not.
But, should we accept them?

There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance, and statutorily acknowledging these unions is forced acceptance.

But to the average voter, I think this is about more than money and benifits. (In reality, I don't think letting them "marry" and get spousal benifits would cause a bit of harm to government programs or raise our taxes.) To the average voter, I believe this is more about acceptance of a lifestyle that many view as immoral.

I agree with that!

Interesting that they have to codify the obvious

No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

So, it was legal up until now?

Separation of Church and state.

Let the states recognize it, But the Church of ROME will never yeild!

Now where did i drop that lit match?

No, it was not. But if you don't spell it out then you can't prevent it. I bet your state has a similarly worded statute for the same reason.

Whew; I don't see nuthin' 'bout cousins...

These things are put out by the conservative party to drive their constituents to the polls. If not for these tactics, they would not be going to the polls to vote due to disgust with the current party.

Re: The gay amendment
 

There is a BIG difference between amending the State's Constitution vs. amending the code. Codes can be easily amended in each legislative session, but amending the Costitution is a lot more permanent, because of the difficulty to amend. Also, a code has the possibilty of being overruled by activist judges, whereas activist judges cannot overrule the State's Constitution.

So, you may see it as a "waste of time", but it may actually be necessary to avoid unwanted results.

I did not realize the difference or the reasoning. Thanks!

It is my opinion that the government should not be involved in this issue.

Good to see they've got their priorities straight instead of wasting their time debating trivial issues like U.S. exit strategy from Iraq, containing North Korea's nuclear program, figuring out what to do about Iran's nuclear program, the genocide in Darfur, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, looming civil war in Iraq (with implications for destabilizing the entire Middle East), alternative energy, global climate change or (naturally) any reports of one of their own engaging in criminal sexual promiscuity with little boys.

I agree, can we please get the government out of the bed room and working on real issues like what Jeff posted. :mad:

Amen. Could not agree more.

You do realize that we are talking about the South Carolina legislature and constitution, don't you? Last time I checked, South Carolina legislature did not have anything to do with the "trivial issues" mentioned above. :rolleyes: