From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in
> favor of the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This is despite the fact, as
> noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay
> marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages.
>
> Anyhow, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the text of the
only
> proposed Amendment with a chance of passage is here:
>
> "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man
> and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any State,
> nor state or Federal Law, shall be construed to require that marital
status
> or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or
groups"
>
> Despite the rhetoric of some opponents, I find it very difficult to read
> the above amendment is making civil unions unconstitutional. Rather, it
> says to me that no Constitution can be interpreted by the Courts as
> *requiring* civil unions, but that legislatures are free to instutiute
> civil unions through the appropriate democratic processes. At any rate,
> this is certainly the outcome I am advocating - and the outcome that is
> advocated by the Amendment's primary sponsors.
You don't even know what it is that you are supporting, do you?
"Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any State, nor state or
Federal Law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal
incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
In short, no constitution *nor* law ("nor state or Federal Law") can require
that a homosexual couple have *any* of the rights of marriage ("marital
status or the legal incidents thereof"). This will prevent homosexual
marriages *as well as* civil unions or any other equivalents.
The fact that the wording is so ambiguous that even its supporters can't
understand what it means clearly shows that it is not fit to be part of the
constitution.
> I support this amendment for the following reasons:
>
> As Dan Minette has noted earlier, any move to permit homosexual marriages
> would constitute "a radical redefinition of marriage." Meanwhile, as I
> noted in a previous message, I think that the current judicial activism on
> this subject benefits noone - not even those who favor the eventual
> legalization of homosexual marriage. Thus, I support the above
amendment
> because it takes this issue out of the Courts and into the Legislatures -
> where this issue very firmly belongs.
A radical redefinition? I disagree with that characterization. Please
support your characterization.
> The above amendment does go a bit further than that, however, in that it
> prevents
> Legislatures from ever considering homosexual *marriages* (while
permitting
> civil unions) - barring a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. I do,
> however support this provision as well - although my case for it is quite
> complicated.
Again, it does not allow any law to convey any of "the legal incidents" of
marriage, therefore, it nullifies the possibility of civil unions.
> 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are
> certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or
> heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist
> on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of
> homosexual relationships will increase the number of these "in-between"
> people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual
> tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be
an
> insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can
> convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend.
So what? You expect people to let you live the way you want to live, so let
other people live the way they want to live.
> 2) Marriages are recognized by governments and given special benefits by
> governments, because marriages promote the siring and raising of the next
> generation. I think that we are starting to see across Europe that
there
> is perhaps a natural human tendency to not maintain the 2.2 births per
> women needed to sustain the next generation. As such, it strikes me as
> more important than ever for governments to produce incentives for
> parenthood and the raising of responsible adults.
Marriage is extended to infertile individuals. There is no requirement in
law or in constitution that marriage is solely for child-rearing.
> 3) Homosexual unions are ill-suited for the siring and raising of the next
> generation. By definition, homosexual unions are infertile. For
> pro-life reasons, I am opposed to in vitro fertilization (say what you
> will, but I am at least consistent in the consequences of my belief that
> human life begins at conception.) As such, it is unreasonable to believe
> that homosexual unions will be producing children - and thus, don't meet
> the first standard for why governments should provide incentives to
promote
> them.
Ever heard of artificial insemination? Ever hear of adoptions? Besides,
in-vitro fertilization is *legal*. No, this argument holds about as much
water as a sieve.
> Furthermore, each child, being the product of a man and a woman, has a
> reasonable expectation of having a mother and a father. It is a basic
> truism that women and men, and hence mothers and fathers, are different in
> some ways (Otherwise, homosexuals would not find it repulsive to marry
> someone of the opposite sex if there were truly no difference between the
> sexes.) As such, *ceteris paribis* we should try and meet a child's
> expectation of having a mother and a father. Now, of course, there are
> numerous situations where governments should very wisely choose not to
meet
> these expectations. Nevertheless, I do not consider it wise for
> governments to provide *incentives* for the siring of children into
> situations where we know *a priori* that this very reasonable expectation
> of the child to have a mother and a father will not be met. Note, that
I
> am not saying that we should make it illegal - merely that the government
> should not provide incentives for this situation. (Nota Bene: The above
> paragraphs are addressed in the minds of the rights of the *child*, not
> necessarily any rights of the couple.)
Single parents are not denied parenting rights, why should a couple be
denied those rights simply because they are of the same sex? Moreover, what
proof is there that heterosexual couples do a better job of raising children
than homosexual couples?
> 4) Despite all of this I am willing to recommend that governments provide
> certain steps of recognition to homosexual unions in the interests of
> social/societal stability and furthering the desires of homosexuals in our
> society to pursue happiness. Nevertheless, I believe that marriage
should
> retain a privileged status in our civilization as the fundamental building
> block of our society concomitant with its role in siring and raising the
> next generation.
Once again, there is nothing in any constitution or law stating that
marriage is for child-rearing, nor does a person need to be married to raise
children, therefore, this idealistic view you have created is false.
Law needs to be applied fairly and equally, and seperate is seldom, if ever,
equal.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
