Gay Marriage Amendment Myths Debunked

**Blodrast** · 05-26-2006, 19:35

I, for one, don't believe that the states should have either the right to define life (abortion), or this (gay-marriage).
I don't think the judges, or whoever the hell is in power, should make that decision. I know it's kind of a cop-out, but a referendum would work best for things like this, imo.
Of course one can't call a referendum for anything and everything there's more than one opinion on, otherwise nothing else would ever get done. But since a lot of people can agree that these are fundamental life-related issues, and not just a tax hike or whatever...
(Actually I believe abortion is a bit more important than gay marriage, but this is probably irrelevant).

**Lemur** · 05-26-2006, 19:40

I agree that the whole marriage debate should be sorted out democratically, not by judges or by a constitutional amendment.

In this case, however, I do believe that federalism is the best course. Let each state decide what it means by marriage. That's the sort of 50-state lab test of which our founding fathers would have approved.

**Blodrast** · 05-26-2006, 19:48

Why ? I mean, why do you believe that each state should decide in this case ?
I'm trying to understand if your emphasis was on "this case" (i.e., you agree that in some cases a referendum is better - gimme examples then, please

), or that each state should decide as a general rule, because that was the intention of the founding fathers ?
Yeah, I know, this is straying a bit OT. Sorry...

**Lemur** · 05-26-2006, 19:51

Well, obviously not every issue should be decided by states. There's a reason we have federal laws and a federal government. Things such as national defense, interstate commerce, interstate crime, etc., are obvious candidates for federal regulation.

The marriage debate, however, seems like a prime candidate for a state-by-state referendum. No state is constitutionally obliged to respect the marriage licenses issued by other states. The only two places where the gay marriage would impinge on federal authority would be income taxes and immigration. And surely those sore spots could be sorted out.

**drone** · 05-26-2006, 20:03

Just a overall feeling, but marraige seems too trivial to go into the Constitution. The Constitution frames the structure of government, and outlines the fundamental rights of the people. Just like the 18th Amendment and the flag burning proposals, some things just don't belong.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 05-27-2006, 00:40

I didn't read the essay, but I say "go for it" for gay marriages.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 05-27-2006, 01:02

Interesting state's rights argument. I am still for an amendment, since there is the threat of judges overturning the will of the people expressed through the legislature.

Crazed Rabbit