A Public Service Announcement!

[carobanano]

If you're an American who opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, please call or write to senators NOW! We need to make our voices heard! Remember, the Federal Marriage Amendment would be the first amendment to restrict rights. It is just wrong that a proposed amendment to the Constitution would violate another part of the same document, the 14th

Comments

[carobanano]

Not at all! The bill moves to add these two sentences to the Constitution:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

It's the second sentence that builds in the discrimination. Senators opposing the amendment argue that it is so imprecise that it could bar people from having civil unions. (Civil unions are legal in a few states- they give some of the legal benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples but not all. Many Americans would support civil union laws in more states, or civil unions that guaranteed the rights of marriage without actually calling it "marriage.")

Some people opposing gay marriage- or opposing the removal of sodomy laws, as was the case in Texas last year- argue that if we give LGBT people more rights, then what's barring us from polygamy, bestiality, and incest? If we legalize gay marriage, who's to say that some guy will step up with his sister or his dog, say that they're in love, and demand equal rights?

Firstly, suggesting that bestiality and incest would be legalized is ridiculous, as in nearly all cases it is nonconsensual. Secondly, the thing that separates homosexuality from things like polygamy, bestiality, etc. is the genetic evidence. There have been multiple published studies that show some pretty clear evidence that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered is determined by genetic makeup, not free will. Therefore, putting laws into the Constitution that bar them from privileges such as marriage is, well, unconstitutional.

Hope this helped clear up any confusion and/or illuminate the other side of the fence. : ) Reading the post again actually makes me cringe. It sounded really desperate and extremist, and I learned today (calling the Capitol) that the Senate is set to vote on the FMA today (the day after I posted that). Most Senators, though, seem to oppose it, and it needs a two-thrids majority to pass. I think I'm going to take out all those CAPS, however.

Whatever happens, I respect your opinion. Clearly, someone who has such great taste in music can't be all wrong! ;D

[axver]

Hm, well I agree with the basic point of the amendment, though I think it's sad it's come to this when the definition of marriage is clearly defined as a heterosexual union. I'm personally not all that keen on these civil unions, though I can't exactly oppose them, and in any case, it's not breaking the very definition of what it is.

I realise the arguments about bestiality and (some instances of) incest are pretty ridiculous, though I enjoy playing devil's advocate sometimes and I've seen very much that the arguments in favour of homosexual marriage can be quite easily taken over to another debate in support of polygamy.

On the topic of studies regarding genetic evidence, I do believe that they have all been disproven or shown to have too much bias on the behalf of the researcher. That said, there's always going to be a problem with genetic testing. A straight researcher proving it's genetic is a 'biased, bleeding heart liberal', but if that researcher disproved it was genetic, he's suddenly hateful and homophobic. If a homosexual researcher proved it was genetic, a good - although not necessarily true - argument can be made that he's too biased. It's like when I argue New Zealand's the greatest rugby nation of all time. The statistics say we are, but I'm a Kiwi, so can I really say that? Many would say not, because I'm naturally too biased by association. About the only researcher you can't raise doubts about is a homosexual researcher disproving it's genetic, but will that happen? Unlikely.

I think this is a minefield really. Theologically, I can argue my position extremely well, but firstly, neither of us lives in a theocracy, and secondly, not everyone's going to agree with my theology so it's rather limited. Outside the theological arena, it's just a total minefield of uncertainty.

Anyway, too early in the morning for me to go on, hehe.

[carobanano]

A minefield, that's an apt term for it. There are so many issues that will never smooth out, and gay rights will probably be one of them. Things are going to just get uglier in the US as the election draws near...on both sides. We'll just have to see what happens.

[axver]

Honestly, I am very glad it's not such a major issue over here ...