Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage
Yes
46
23.23%
No
152
76.77%
Voters: 198. You may not vote on this poll

Do you support a Gay Marriage Ban Amendment?

Old 11-09-04, 04:42 PM
  #1  
Admin-Thanos
Thread Starter
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,582
Do you support a Gay Marriage Ban Amendment?

Do you support an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
VinVega is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 04:46 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
No, I do not.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 04:52 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Same-sex marriage is not an issue with me.

Obviously it is for a number of people.

Since I don't support amending the Constitution (other than the repeal of the 17th Amendment), I would be opposed.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 04:54 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Heck no.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 04:56 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Un-Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 2,718
Nope. I believe that the definition of marriage is a state issue.
wlmowery is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 04:57 PM
  #6  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,837
I'll raise Red Dog's "Heck no" with a "Hell no."

The recent election shows that the states are more than capable of handling this issue on their own.

I'd be interested to hear from the two people (so far) who voted "Yes." They're curiously silent.
Groucho is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:01 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The recent election shows that the states are more than capable of handling this issue on their own.
That's sort of a (what's the word I'm thinking of). People who utter that know fully well that the states don't have the final word on this issue. Even if the states define marriage in the traditional way, the federal courts will strike that down.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:07 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Shoveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Posts: 4,720
Here's my take...

Marriage existed as a religious institution long before it became licensed by the government. The current problems with gay marraige are the result of this, just as if the government starterd to license baptisms and then, years later, tried to redefine baptisms to be more inclusive than they currently are.

I've yet to hear anyone object to gay marraige and civil unions. In fact, every time I hear someone object to gay marraige, they say something like "I have no problem with civil unions, let them have that, but no marraiges." It seems to me that the strongest objections are coming from those who continue to view marraige as a religious institution, and are offended because "gay marraige" violates some tenet of their religious belief.

Therefore, I believe that rather than stregthen the definition of marraige through a constitutional amendment, the government should abandon its association with the institution of marraige, and limit its licensing and regulation to civil unions. People could still get married in the church of their choice, but that relationship would have no standing in the eyes of the government. The legal definition, for all couples, would be a civil union.

I'm not suggesting that the current state of affairs is a violation of the separation of church and state, I'm merely suggesting that it complicates the issue by extending governmental control and policies into what is viewed by many as a religious institution. Clarifying the distinction would, in my opinion, benefit everyone involved. Any thoughts on this?
Shoveler is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:16 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,972
Originally posted by Shoveler
I've yet to hear anyone object to gay marraige and civil unions.
You may not be hearing it, but it certainly is out there. A bunch of states just outlawed gay marriage and civil unions in their constitutions!
Originally posted by Shoveler

In fact, every time I hear someone object to gay marraige, they say something like "I have no problem with civil unions, let them have that, but no marraiges."
I know you didn't mean it this way, but do you have any idea how condescending that sounds?
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:19 PM
  #10  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,854
Originally posted by classicman2
Same-sex marriage is not an issue with me.

Obviously it is for a number of people.

Since I don't support amending the Constitution (other than the repeal of the 17th Amendment), I would be opposed.
I am in complete agreement.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:20 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,518
Originally posted by Shoveler
Here's my take...

Marriage existed as a religious institution long before it became licensed by the government. The current problems with gay marraige are the result of this, just as if the government starterd to license baptisms and then, years later, tried to redefine baptisms to be more inclusive than they currently are.

I've yet to hear anyone object to gay marraige and civil unions. In fact, every time I hear someone object to gay marraige, they say something like "I have no problem with civil unions, let them have that, but no marraiges." It seems to me that the strongest objections are coming from those who continue to view marraige as a religious institution, and are offended because "gay marraige" violates some tenet of their religious belief.

Therefore, I believe that rather than stregthen the definition of marraige through a constitutional amendment, the government should abandon its association with the institution of marraige, and limit its licensing and regulation to civil unions. People could still get married in the church of their choice, but that relationship would have no standing in the eyes of the government. The legal definition, for all couples, would be a civil union.

I'm not suggesting that the current state of affairs is a violation of the separation of church and state, I'm merely suggesting that it complicates the issue by extending governmental control and policies into what is viewed by many as a religious institution. Clarifying the distinction would, in my opinion, benefit everyone involved. Any thoughts on this?
Shoveler, meet the good people of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah, all of which just passed amendments banning gay marriage and civil unions.

As for me, I voted "Not just no, but hell no."
JasonF is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:26 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Shoveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Posts: 4,720
Originally posted by joeblow69
You may not be hearing it, but it certainly is out there. A bunch of states just outlawed gay marriage and civil unions in their constitutions!

I know you didn't mean it this way, but do you have any idea how condescending that sounds?
Yes, but I'm not stating that as my position, that is the response I'm hearing, typically from older (60+) folks. I fully support equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to commit to a lifelong, loving relationship if they choose to do so. I just don't see where it's any business of the government's, and think that the governmental involvement should be limited to the formation of a partnership in a legal sense, hence my opinion that civil unions should be for everyone, not just homosexuals. Religious marraiges can be for those who want them, but they would be meaningless legally (on the order of friendship rings) without a corresponding civil union. Some churches would probably refuse to perform marraiges without a civil union license, just as they do now with marraige licenses.
Shoveler is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:28 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Nope, I wouldn't support such an amendment.
CaptainMarvel is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:29 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Docking Bay 94
Posts: 14,259
No, for two reasons:

1. In general, I do not support amending the Constitution unless absolutely necessary.

2. For this issue in particular, I lean heavily Libertarian. The government should not be issuing "marriages" to anyone -- heterosexual or homosexual. Leave that to the churches.
bboisvert is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:31 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Shoveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Posts: 4,720
Originally posted by JasonF
Shoveler, meet the good people of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah, all of which just passed amendments banning gay marriage and civil unions.

As for me, I voted "Not just no, but hell no."
I hadn't realized that all of those amendments were banning civil unions as well as gay marraiges, but I certainly stand corrected.
Shoveler is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:32 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,236
No, and I'm embarrased that my state passed a constitutional amendment.
Jeremy517 is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:33 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally posted by Groucho
I'll raise Red Dog's "Heck no" with a "Hell no."

The recent election shows that the states are more than capable of handling this issue on their own.

I'd be interested to hear from the two people (so far) who voted "Yes." They're curiously silent.
The "yes" votes are up to 6 and still nothing from any of them. Interesting...
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:45 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
I think marriage should be pulled out of government altogether . . . if we want to continue making couples privy to special treatment (insurance, etc.) then create something called a legal/civil/etc. union and let any pair of adults who wants one have it.

If, at that point, they want to continue on with a religous marriage ceremony or a special secular ceremony with their friends, or whatever, that's up to them and whatever religious group the choose (or don't choose) to include. Legally, it won't make a difference . . . legally it would only be accomplished by establishing the union via the government.



Unfortunately, my option is not up there, so I can't vote.
talemyn is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:46 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,518
Originally posted by Shoveler
Yes, but I'm not stating that as my position, that is the response I'm hearing, typically from older (60+) folks. I fully support equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to commit to a lifelong, loving relationship if they choose to do so. I just don't see where it's any business of the government's, and think that the governmental involvement should be limited to the formation of a partnership in a legal sense, hence my opinion that civil unions should be for everyone, not just homosexuals. Religious marraiges can be for those who want them, but they would be meaningless legally (on the order of friendship rings) without a corresponding civil union. Some churches would probably refuse to perform marraiges without a civil union license, just as they do now with marraige licenses.
But what does that mean? We already live in a society where:

1) Two gay men can go to certain houses of worship (Unitarian, Reform Judaism, etc.) and get married. Their marriage will have no legal recognition.
2) A secular man and woman can go to city hall and get married by a Justice of the Peace. Their marriage will have no religious recognition.
3) A Baptist and a Catholic can get married in a Baptist church, after obtaining a marriage license from the state. Their marriage will have legal recognition and religious recognition by Baptist churches, but not (as I understand it) by the Catholic church.

... and so on. Marriage already has two meanings: a religious one and a civil one. In fact, as examples 1 and 3 demonstrate, different religions have different definitions of marriage. So is the problem that churches objext to sharing the word "marriage" with the state? That religious people are too stupid (or think other people will be too stupid) to recognize that just because the state recognizes a marriage doesn't mean their church will necessarily recognize the marriage? Nobody gets up in arms because Catholics and Criminal Prosecutors both use the word "confession," even though that word means very different things in their respective contexts. It's semantics, and it's ridiculous.

Personally, I don't give a damn whether they call it marriage, civil unions, or zaxxon, as long as two gay people can go to City Hall and get the exact same license that two straight people would get.
JasonF is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:52 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
tasha99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: the North
Posts: 5,855
I'm against amending the Constitution for what I consider to be states' issues, so "no."

I'm pretty sad that my own state (Oregon) voted to amend its constitution. While I think churches have every right to choose who they will or won't marry, the state ought to be less discriminating; they ought to be taking care of the minority, gay population and including them.

My parents were very into the ban for religious reasons, but I think it's the religious background they gave me that makes this ban so distasteful to me. I was taught to not be jealous of others' good fortunes, and to me, that's what a big concern over "gay marriage" is--a jealousy, let's-keep-them-out-of-our-club issue. If someone has a strong, loving marriage, the two guys down the street who just married each other aren't going to lessen that in any way. The kind of person who thinks someone else's marriage affects theirs needs to learn to tend his or her own garden.

tasha
tasha99 is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:53 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Originally posted by talemyn

Unfortunately, my option is not up there, so I can't vote.
Sure, you can. The question wasn't, "How do you think the controversy about gay marriage should be resolved?" It was, "Yes or no -- should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman?" It's not entirely a hypothetical question, and one can express one's opinion on it without necessarily advocating a particular approach to the larger issue.
dork is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 05:58 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
Originally posted by dork
Sure, you can. The question wasn't, "How do you think the controversy about gay marriage should be resolved?" It was, "Yes or no -- should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman?" It's not entirely a hypothetical question, and one can express one's opinion on it without necessarily advocating a particular approach to the larger issue.
Yeah . . . I know what you mean . . . I guess, I just need a little more background on the results of the options before I could honestly say. I suppose I'm leaning towards no, but I see that causing almost as many issues as yes would.
talemyn is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 06:02 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Shoveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Posts: 4,720
Originally posted by JasonF
Marriage already has two meanings: a religious one and a civil one. In fact, as examples 1 and 3 demonstrate, different religions have different definitions of marriage. So is the problem that churches objext to sharing the word "marriage" with the state? That religious people are too stupid (or think other people will be too stupid) to recognize that just because the state recognizes a marriage doesn't mean their church will necessarily recognize the marriage? Nobody gets up in arms because Catholics and Criminal Prosecutors both use the word "confession," even though that word means very different things in their respective contexts. It's semantics, and it's ridiculous.

Personally, I don't give a damn whether they call it marriage, civil unions, or zaxxon, as long as two gay people can go to City Hall and get the exact same license that two straight people would get.
I agree. It's semantics. And it's a clouded issue because of the overloaded use of the word "marriage" (I'm going to make a concerted effort to start spelling that word correctly!). Your confession example fails because the Catholic sacrament isn't confession, it is reconciliation. The word confession means the same thing in both contexts, which is basically "acknowledging your transgressions".

The point is, since it is nothing more than semantics, and you've acknowledged the lack of a clear definition for "marriage", why not simplify things? The problem is that people who view marriage as a religiously significant relationship/covenant, as the basis for their family structure, are opposed to modifying their perceived definition of the term to include homosexuals. You can call that stupid if you want, but I think you'd be better off strengthening your position than attempting to denigrate your opposition. And in the end, if you can achieve everything you want, why argue and call names. My proposal satisfies your stated requirement (in your last paragraph) 100%. So why are we arguing?

Last edited by Shoveler; 11-09-04 at 06:06 PM.
Shoveler is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 06:05 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,978
Originally posted by joeblow69
You may not be hearing it, but it certainly is out there. A bunch of states just outlawed gay marriage and civil unions in their constitutions!
I guess there just aren't very many of those people on the internets.
Roto is offline  
Old 11-09-04, 06:11 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
AGuyNamedMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (formerly known as Inglenook Hampendick) Fairbanks, Alaska!
Posts: 15,251
I voted no, it should be a state issue. I also think that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and that the battle to change hearts and minds to agree with me should be fought at the community and state level. You didn't ask, but I voted for W and this was not one of my hot button issues.
AGuyNamedMike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.