People seem to forget that we are a democratic republic, and being such can alter the constitution (the phrase liberty and justice for all is not in the constitution by the way). If the majority wishes to change the constitution, they can do so by democracy (it takes a super-majority in congress I believe). So please don't state the pledge of allegiance as grounds for disliking a Texas constitutional amendment. And the whole separation of church and state is taken way too far anyway. It simply means that their will be no state sponsored religion. This amendment is not outlawing non-christian marriage. It is outlawing gay marriage. So the amendment in itself is not Christian. True the majority of it's supporters happen to be Christian, and Christianity is what makes them believe that gay marriage is wrong. That doesn't make the amendment Christian. I would also like to note that the only reason I bring up constitutionality of this is because it is a state constitution, which must be in line with the national constitution. As for the national level, laws must be constitutional. Amendments do not need to meet this standard, because if passed, they become the constitution. Therefore, any legal argument against it is invalid by virtue of it being part of the supreme law of the land. Many people seem to think that gays have the right to get married, and this amendment is impeding that right. The whole point of making it an amendment and not a law, is to throw out that argument. By making it an amendment, the constitution is saying that gays do not have the right to get married, end of discussion. If there is a sufficient majority that believes this way and wants to solidify that gays do not have the right to get married, they pass an amendment. That is how our democracy works people. As of now gays neither have the right, nor are denied the right to get married. The whole issue is whether or not they should have that right. Please don't state that they have that right as part of your argument against such an amendment. I think debate on this issue, like any issue is a good thing and valid points do exist on both sides. It just pisses me off when people base their argument on a point that is the very issue being debated. AKA Stupid people piss me off.
Now I risk being called a hypocrite by those who don't understand this next issue. I would vote no on such an amendment. My reasoning for this is simply that it is not the place of the govt (I was being devil's advocate earlier on the application of church and state to such an amendment). It ticks me off when people get pissed off that others are trying to change the constitution to what they believe. The constitution is after all simply what the majority believes to be right, and people seem to forget that. It's not like it's divinely inspired. If there is enough people to pass an amendment, then you have to deal with it.
I'm sorry Chance, for leaving such a long "comment". I do not mean to imply that you are the basis for all of my argument. I just needed to vent because people's approach to this issue really pisses me off.
I think the past way to explain my position is to state my solution.
I think gay marriage is wrong and that it shouldn't happen. But the govt can't tell the religions who they can and cannot join in marriage. The govt can pass an amendment defining justice of the peace marriages as between a man and a woman, but must still recognize any marriage condoned by a religious authority. (I believe marriage is a religious institution) If a Christian church wishes to be hypocritcal and marry a gay couple, that is their perogative. I would however, no longer have respect for that church. Basically I think gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't happen, but the govt can only govern state marriages.
Now I risk being called a hypocrite by those who don't understand this next issue. I would vote no on such an amendment. My reasoning for this is simply that it is not the place of the govt (I was being devil's advocate earlier on the application of church and state to such an amendment). It ticks me off when people get pissed off that others are trying to change the constitution to what they believe. The constitution is after all simply what the majority believes to be right, and people seem to forget that. It's not like it's divinely inspired. If there is enough people to pass an amendment, then you have to deal with it.
I'm sorry Chance, for leaving such a long "comment". I do not mean to imply that you are the basis for all of my argument. I just needed to vent because people's approach to this issue really pisses me off.
Reply
I think gay marriage is wrong and that it shouldn't happen. But the govt can't tell the religions who they can and cannot join in marriage. The govt can pass an amendment defining justice of the peace marriages as between a man and a woman, but must still recognize any marriage condoned by a religious authority. (I believe marriage is a religious institution) If a Christian church wishes to be hypocritcal and marry a gay couple, that is their perogative. I would however, no longer have respect for that church. Basically I think gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't happen, but the govt can only govern state marriages.
Reply
Leave a comment