Would you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanSensei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VanSensei

Guest
Evening, everyone. I heard about the senator from Kansas and other desires to want a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the wake of the DOMA ruling last month and I’m just curious to see what CAF would think should such a thing ever surface. Unlikely, but anything is possible.
 
My answer is exactly what every Catholic should be. 100 % yes. But the way the government is it would be a miracle from God.
 
I WOULD NOT ! ! !

The no-talent A-clowns we have in the House and Senate (as well as SOCTUS) are not the Founding Fathers. They do not rate. Nor are they (any of them) a more noble creature than me, and I would want to hear each and every one of them profess that.

They cannot ensure the citizenship of those voting on the ratification, I darn sure don’t want them opening Pandora’s Box by initiating a Constitutional Convention.

UNLESS, you’re up for a Civil War, and then I say let’s go.
 
Least said:
I WOULD NOT ! ! !

The no-talent A-clowns we have in the House and Senate (as well as SOCTUS) are not the Founding Fathers. They do not rate. Nor are they (any of them) a more noble creature than me, and I would want to hear each and every one of them profess that.

They cannot ensure the citizenship of those voting on the ratification, I darn sure don’t want them opening Pandora’s Box by initiating a Constitutional Convention.

UNLESS, you’re up for a Civil War, and then I say let’s go.
Click to expand...
A Constitutional Amendment would not necessitate a Constitutional Convention. It would only be an amendment on that particular issue.

A Constitutional Convention, if successfully called, would open up the entire Constitution for amendment and change. But I don’t think that anyone is calling for that.
 
VanSensei said:
Evening, everyone. I heard about the senator from Kansas and other desires to want a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the wake of the DOMA ruling last month and I’m just curious to see what CAF would think should such a thing ever surface. Unlikely, but anything is possible.
Click to expand...
I would not support it, nor do I support any state’s banning same-sex marriage.
 
What does “all legal rec” mean, hard to answer a poll you don’t understand. So I didn’t.
 
The OP is a loaded question since it’s not about banning so-called “same-sex marriage” it’s about showing respect for and protecting the natural institution of marriage. It’s actually about being for truth and against lies.
 
Can you really ban something that doesn’t really exist in the first place?
 
bzkoss236 said:
Can you really ban something that doesn’t really exist in the first place?
Click to expand...
Right. And we are against it because so-called “same-sex marriage” is a lie. And a lie endorsed and enforced by the government is still a lie. The Catholic Church is about following the truth.
 
livingwordunity said:
It’s not about banning so-called “same-sex marriage” it’s about showing respect for and protecting the natural institution of marriage.

It’s actually about being for truth and against lies.

.
Click to expand...
I think it’s actually about imposing specific moral values held by certain religions on the whole country. Why not constitutionally ban adultery and divorce as well, and enforce the blue laws on a national level, including selling alcohol on Sundays? We live in a pluralistic society composed of different religious groups and moral values. The prohibition against murder is for the common good of all, but I don’t think any equally powerful case can be made for same-sex marriage, no stronger than a constitutional amendment banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, for example.
 
For what seems to be the popular opinion (Yes), why? Lets analyze the reasons people do not support same sex marriage, the reasons people make things illegal, and the whole idea of the founding fathers creation of this country.

People believe same sex marriage is immoral. It is the only reason really, this isn’t to say it is a bad reason but it is the only reason why.

People make things illegal because they violate someone else’s rights; a couple examples of this would be:
Murder, Rape, Abortion, Assault, Restriction of Religion (1st), Restriction of Speech (1st), Restriction of Privacy (3rd), Restriction to not self incriminate (5th)
Some of these are simply legally prohibited others are constitutionally prohibited. But what these all have in common is an infraction on someone else’s rights. Notice I did not mention these many things you find equally immoral to same sex marriage but do not violate another’s rights:
Lying, Adultery, Masturbation, Pornography, Blasphemy, Insulting your parents, Worshiping Idols, Worshiping False gods, etc

Certainty many of these are morally heinous. So then why aren’t they illegal? Because they do not violate another person’s rights.

So on the issue of Same Sex Marriage there are three options
  1. Affirm it. That is legally support it.
  2. Deny it. That is legally punish it.
  3. Ignore it. Do not speak on the issue.
Number 1 I am guessing all those who say yes clearly thing it is immoral to do. But what about 2 and 3. First off what would it be to legally punish same sex marriage, how would you say it is banned? What would you be banning? Sodomy? Intercourse with someone of the same sex? Or would it be a pointless waste of time with the only purpose to be is to prohibit 1 (by needing a repeal), at that point you would just do it to legislate your morality. So why not start with those other things I mentioned above? Or instead simply go for option 3; not allowing the government to speak on it as it is not an issue for the legislature but of two people’s personal autonomy.

Oh and if you do want to legislate your morals, how do you feel about Sharia law?
 
meltzerboy said:
I think it’s actually about imposing specific moral values held by certain religions on the whole country. Why not constitutionally ban adultery and divorce as well, and enforce the blue laws on a national level, including selling alcohol on Sundays? We live in a pluralistic society composed of different religious groups and moral values. The prohibition against murder is for the common good of all, but I don’t think any equally powerful case can be made for same-sex marriage, no stronger than a constitutional amendment banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, for example.
Click to expand...
Civil law is about imposing someone’s moral values on all of society. Laws mean that people can go to jail or worse for not complying with them. Making so-called “same-sex marriage” the law is an imposition of someone’s moral values since it is a way of the government using legal force to strong arming people into accepting the idea that marriage can be redefined. The Catholic Church has always been against adultery or divorce. As a matter of fact, Catholics in America fought against so-called the “no fault divorce” law. And another point is that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept an invalid marriage between two heterosexuals either. And Catholics weren’t trying to make homosexual behavior illegal before this so-called “same-sex marriage” debate. So there’s no singling out of homosexuals. The “gay” activists are the ones who picked this fight with those of us who believe that marriage is a God-created and not a man-made institution. In other words, the “gay” activists threw the first punch.
 
livingwordunity said:
Civil law is about imposing someone’s moral values on all of society. Laws mean that people can go to jail or worse for not complying with them. Making so-called “same-sex marriage” the law is an imposition of someone’s moral values since it is a way of strong arming people into accepting the idea that marriage can be redefined to whatever. The Catholic Church has always been against adultery or divorce. As a matter of fact, Catholics in America fought against so-called the “no fault divorce” law. And another point is that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept an invalid marriage between two heterosexuals either.
Click to expand...
Some of the ramifications of same-sex marriage may be an imposition on certain believers’ moral values, such as cases of Catholic, and other, adoption agencies refusing to service gay couples, or photographers whose moral convictions do not allow them to work at a gay wedding. I believe these cases should be dealt with separately, and I tend to favor individuals’ and organizations’ freedom to practice their religious rights in such situations. However, although adultery is still “on the books” according to Torah Law as well as Canon Law, in our society no one is charged with this moral crime, and the same holds true for divorce according to Canon Law (btw, Judaism is not opposed to no-fault divorce and may in fact have been one of its earliest advocates based on Talmudic teaching), and no doubt other immoral acts that are forbidden by Sharia Law. The question arises whose morality on these and many other issues do we abide by in our multicultural society, especially if the issue involved does not directly infringe on others’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
 
It wouldn’t be a matter of “banning” gay marriage, but simply of affirming what marriage is. A marital relationship by nature includes sexual complementarity. It has been so since the beginning of civilization. I wouldn’t call it the banning of anything, just a restoration of reason.
 
JimG said:
It wouldn’t be a matter of “banning” gay marriage, but simply of affirming what marriage is. A marital relationship by nature includes sexual complementarity. It has been so since the beginning of civilization. I wouldn’t call it the banning of anything, just a restoration of reason.
Click to expand...
Would a constitutional amendment then be the best place for this kind of affirmation? I thought constitutional amendments were designed to actively safeguard certain rights of citizens.
 
meltzerboy said:
Would a constitutional amendment then be the best place for this kind of affirmation? I thought constitutional amendments were designed to actively safeguard certain rights of citizens.
Click to expand...
I’m really undecided on the issue. Marriage law is something that should be the province of the various States. And yet when States take it upon themselves to enshrine an impossible fiction as a legal entity, chaos ensues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top