Alfonso - what would you do if the majority of people thought black or latino people shouldn't be able to get married or raise kids? Maybe some people think they are too uneducated or prone to crime or drug addiction, and they're unlikely to be responsible parents? Sure, some might be good, but perhaps some people might think society would be better off banning it? A lot of people thought that way 150 years ago. Now if the majority of voting Americans thought that way, wouldn't it be reasonable to ban marriages and childbirth amongst blacks and latinos? If not, why not? In the real world, in the here and now, don't the majority have to decide right and wrong? Secondly, you are confusing allowing gay marriage with allowing the raising of children. Married homosexuals could easily be treated identically under law the same as a heterosexual couple with no children. After all, they can't *choose* to have kids can they! They can only get a kid by adoption, and then they have to pass adoption suitability tests - which is where your various objections can be legitimately raised. In any case, *right now* homosexuals can adopt children. There are paired off "faggots" in the states who currently have adopted kids and are bringing them up. So if that's what you are trying to prevent, you are too late. Let's get back on topic - forgetting the issue of kids (let's assume gay childrearing is made illegal), why can't childless gay couples get married? Oh, and try to drop the "faggot" thing. It's a bit like a white guy going on about niggers, spics, and wetbacks - not exactly polite, is it?
To all the arguments offered against homosexuality the most frequent response is: But homosexuals have no choice. To many <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=55">people</a> this claim is so emotionally powerful that no further reflection seems necessary. How can we oppose actions that <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=55">people</a> have not chosen? The question is much more instructive when posed in a more specific way: Is homosexuality biologically programmed from birth, or is it socially and psychologically induced? There is clearly no one answer that accounts for all Actually, there is a biological trait that determines homosexuality: a characteristic brain structure exclusive in homosexuals. I can't offer any more info than this, but I'm 99% certain of the gist of this statement. It's a recent finding, which I just learned in psych 101 last summer.
I really don't have much time to reply back to you because you obviously are missing the point: The Constitution has NEVER, ever restricted one's rights or discriminated against a group of people. The Constitution was about advancing rights for the people, and keeping Government out of our lives . . . Your thesis and inference that law is based upon a social majority is a fallacy.
NEVER???? ....not to nit pick but the original constitution did.....women and blacks were not entitled to many of the rights....but in its present form you are correct.......i would say this: Gay marriage should be decided by the STATES....each state may be different but so be it.
I think you may have meant me not alfonso regarding that majority thing. I suspect this will develop into a question of semantics because there is no real question about how the USA works and how it was a model for many other governments. Sure the supreme court took some power into their own hands and chooses to protect minorities under limited circumstances. But it is still the elected legislature that makes law. And in general a majority voters elect each person in the legislature.
Again, this is a Civil rights issue and a State rights issue. The U.S. Constitution has never been used to "discriminate" against people. Period. Bush is simply pandering to the religious right on this. Politics as usual for George Dubya. Big Government telling us what to do, and Big Deficits spending OUR money. Same old same old. States Rights!
The amusement to me is when California was in the midst of an energy crisis causing harm not only to California, but as a consequence to the nation, Bush's position was that the problem was a "state" issue, not an intra-state or a federal issue. Yet, if gays want to wed that is a threat to national stability. Too funny!
I couldn't agree with you more! Bush couldn't have cared less when the Energy Companies were manipulating the California Power Market during a recession. No problem here! We'll just let the world's 5th largest economy[b/] simply twist in the wind, during a recession, and a depression in Silicon Valley . . . No problem. But hey, if gays want to get married . . . that's definitely a FEDERALIST issue and we need to get the Federal Government in on it, immediately! Thanks Dubya. You are as political a phony as ever. Pandering to the religious right during an election year? Of course. Trying to take the spotlight off of Iraq and WMD's? Of course. Budget deficits approaching $500 Billion? No problem. A Trade Deficit as far as you can see? Aaaa, forget it. Social Security in trouble? Na, that's not an important issue Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants? Yeah, let's do that for the latino vote! No Job Growth in the past 26 months since the Recession ended? Let's talk about something else, like gays getting married. Again, I am a middle of the road Republican and can't wait to live in a Country that is not run by Karl Rove.
Hate to play devils advocate here.....what am I saying, I love doing that.... here goes.......What the HELL is the matter with California?? With all their problems, is this the issue they should be tackling????
California is doing just fine, my friend. San Francisco City Hall has already made over $225,000 off of new "marraige" licenses. Next week, Ahnald offers up a $15 Billion dollar bond issue as a Proposition.