Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jewel · 07-08-2003, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court's repeal of Texas' sodomy law, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was backing a constitutional amendment to reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

The Tennessee Republican would add an amendment because " ... marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman."

The leap from "sacrament" to "legal entity" is not as subtle as Frist would like it to seem. The root of sacrament is the Latin sacer, meaning "sacred ... dedicated to or reserved for the worship of a deity."

Anyone think such an amendment would pass or stand??

Story

here

GaryP · 07-08-2003, 06:02 AM

I think Gays have made big enough strides that such as amendment has very little chance of getting the approval of the required number of states.

I wish I could say the same about an "under God" amendment. Although, if it does come to that point, I think it would be a great opportunity to educate the public about CSS.

07-08-2003, 06:24 AM

Should the amendment pass (which I really doubt it will), two consenting adults of legal age will not be able to have the legal benefits of marriage just because they happen to be the of the same sex... Idiocy at its finest, I must say...

You know, they say that every time a Republican dies, a queer angel gets its wings. {implied threat edited out}

Babylon Sister · 07-08-2003, 06:46 AM

What I can't figure out is what the hell does the Constitution of the United States of America have to do with marriage in the first place? Is there ANY kind of constitutional reference to marriage?

It seems as if some congressmen think they can wave the Constitution around as some sort of threat, much like people who threaten to sue everytime someone walks by thier house.

This kaka makes me soooo cranky! It sacres me.

SLD · 07-08-2003, 07:02 AM

Like the Flag Burning Amendment, this amendment is not really designed to ever really be passed. It is merely for political show by Republicans. It says: "Look at me, I'm defending the American Way." And people eat it up: "Wow, he's for the flag and the American way; let's vote for him!"

It pisses me off to no end that people can be so small minded and not see through such charlatans.

SLD

Philosoft · 07-08-2003, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
Like the Flag Burning Amendment, this amendment is not really designed to ever really be passed. It is merely for political show by Republicans. It says: "Look at me, I'm defending the American Way." And people eat it up: "Wow, he's for the flag and the American way; let's vote for him!"

I agree. The state does not appear to have anything resembling a compelling case. The argument that legal same-sex marriage will somehow affect the frequency or duration of man-woman marriage is simply a non-starter.

Oresta · 07-08-2003, 06:03 PM

Michael Kinsley has the perfect solution: privatize marriage. How could the neocons, who are soooo much into less government in our lives, possibly object to this solution? Read on.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127

Jutsuka · 07-09-2003, 04:05 AM

Perhaps someone should enlighten the christians to the fact that it wasn't until the 15th or 16th century that the church even dignifed itself to handle marriages and that was a purley economical decision.

Before that the christian church wouldn't touch marriages with a ten foot pole... All marriages where purley economical or political arrangements between families.

So the entire "marriage is a sacrament..." is bull. In Europe in the middle ages the church realized that there was money to be made from marriages by stating that it was against gods law to marry anyone related by blood to the eleventh generation (I think...). Wich meant that finding someone to marry who wasn't descended from your great, great, great (and so on...) grandfather could be tough. However for a modest fee the church could give it's blessing and allow it to slide...

trunks2k · 07-09-2003, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jutsuka
Perhaps someone should enlighten the christians to the fact that it wasn't until the 15th or 16th century that the church even dignifed itself to handle marriages and that was a purley economical decision.

I've never heard of that before. You got a link or anything about it?

Jutsuka · 07-09-2003, 02:13 PM

"In the Middle Ages, with elaborate churches symbolising the power of religion, opposition to marriage diminished. Sex was still viewed with disapproval, even within marriage. It was not until the mid sixteenth century that marriage was recognised as a church ritual."

History of Sex and Love

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2003, 06:02 AM	#2
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	I think Gays have made big enough strides that such as amendment has very little chance of getting the approval of the required number of states. I wish I could say the same about an "under God" amendment. Although, if it does come to that point, I think it would be a great opportunity to educate the public about CSS.

07-08-2003, 06:24 AM	#3
Ad Astra Guest Posts: n/a	Should the amendment pass (which I really doubt it will), two consenting adults of legal age will not be able to have the legal benefits of marriage just because they happen to be the of the same sex... Idiocy at its finest, I must say... You know, they say that every time a Republican dies, a queer angel gets its wings. {implied threat edited out}

07-08-2003, 06:46 AM	#4
Babylon Sister Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wyoming Posts: 894	What I can't figure out is what the hell does the Constitution of the United States of America have to do with marriage in the first place? Is there ANY kind of constitutional reference to marriage? It seems as if some congressmen think they can wave the Constitution around as some sort of threat, much like people who threaten to sue everytime someone walks by thier house. This kaka makes me soooo cranky! It sacres me.

07-08-2003, 07:02 AM	#5
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	Like the Flag Burning Amendment, this amendment is not really designed to ever really be passed. It is merely for political show by Republicans. It says: "Look at me, I'm defending the American Way." And people eat it up: "Wow, he's for the flag and the American way; let's vote for him!" It pisses me off to no end that people can be so small minded and not see through such charlatans. SLD

07-08-2003, 06:03 PM	#7
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	Michael Kinsley has the perfect solution: privatize marriage. How could the neocons, who are soooo much into less government in our lives, possibly object to this solution? Read on. http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127

07-09-2003, 04:05 AM	#8
Jutsuka Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 144	Perhaps someone should enlighten the christians to the fact that it wasn't until the 15th or 16th century that the church even dignifed itself to handle marriages and that was a purley economical decision. Before that the christian church wouldn't touch marriages with a ten foot pole... All marriages where purley economical or political arrangements between families. So the entire "marriage is a sacrament..." is bull. In Europe in the middle ages the church realized that there was money to be made from marriages by stating that it was against gods law to marry anyone related by blood to the eleventh generation (I think...). Wich meant that finding someone to marry who wasn't descended from your great, great, great (and so on...) grandfather could be tough. However for a modest fee the church could give it's blessing and allow it to slide...

07-09-2003, 02:13 PM	#10
Jutsuka Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 144	"In the Middle Ages, with elaborate churches symbolising the power of religion, opposition to marriage diminished. Sex was still viewed with disapproval, even within marriage. It was not until the mid sixteenth century that marriage was recognised as a church ritual." History of Sex and Love

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.