Carpenter on the Federal Marriage Amendment

I find that paper scarey and short-sighted. It examines the situation without any regard for the morality of banning same-sex marriage - which is the real issue. All he is doing is saying that if you can overcome the obstacles to getting an amendment passed, there is no moral reason not to do it. What must be addressed are the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage and exposing them as being religion based and therefore not entitled to constitutional protection.

Karl -

I did not get that as the point. The point I got was that even if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you should still reject a Constitutional ammendment banning it, as that would be giving just too much power to the Federal government.

Dale is pro-gay marriage. In fact, he's one of the most eloquent of advocates for gay marriage. But that paper is addressed to those who are against gay marriage or are on the fence about it, to convince them that even if you're against it as a matter of policy, you should not be for the constitutional amendment.

"A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level."

This is a miriad of problems with FMA. No one supports it on policy grounds so opposing it only policy grounds can be quite futile. From top to bottom, FMA is bigotry wrapped in religious garb. It's like discussing Jim Crow as policy or law - what is there to discuss!

But the real point is that FMA will not become a part of the Constitution and no one seems to not want to tell the bigots. It'll join Flag burning and English-only as boogie men to be used by the NeoCons.

Something that really bothers me about the whole FMA is that it's a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. As the author points out, it's overkill. All it does is just show their complete intolerance for same-sex couples. Who knows what other views a person who supports such an amednment could hold?

If anything, why can't they just make it a law? Even though it's still stupid and intolerant, it certainly isn't as bad.

The religious right would explode in anger if the government intruded into their churches and told them what religious practices they could and could not do. However, it's okay for the religious right to restrict the practices of churches that they are not affiliated with. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Amazingly simple concept for those against gay marriage ...

Don't marry another dude... or for the ladies, chick...

This issue is such a crock of pseudo-religious intolerant shyte it makes me ill. To deny rights, family, love? In the name of a religion that claims to be a religion of love? Sickening. To deny people the right to be with their loved ones as they die? To deny them the right to raise their children? To force them to live apart when you attack them for not "wanting" family lives? Originally this was a non issue for me. I'm heterosexual, happily married, etc. But I have a few friends who are gay, former students who are gay, etc. And the shrill BS that comes from the religious right about this issue ... pisses me off.