Home | Community | Message Board

Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 23,099
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 10 minutes
Is marriage unconstitutional?
    #1774789 - 08/03/03 04:02 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

All this talk about gay "marriage" has got me wondering.

When and how did the U.S. government get the power to regognise any kind of marriage?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Two inch dick..but it spins!?

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,239
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is marriage unconstitutional? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1774952 - 08/03/03 07:24 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)


Clinton Rides Again

Saturday, August 2, 2003 9:19 PM EST
Clinton Opposed Same Sex Marriages

Before condemning George Bush for taking a stand against same-sex marriages, liberals should keep in mind that not long ago one of their heroes took a similar stand.

George Bush is not the only president to come out against same sex marriages - Bill Clinton, the liberal's darling, not only said he opposed the idea, he signed into law a ban on state recognition of such unions.

As Nick Gillespie recalls in Reason Online's Hit and Run feature, Clinton signed The Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996. The measure was designed to prevent states from recognizing the validity of gay marriages.

In signing the act, the suddenly moral Clinton said the had "long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages."

Clinton's full statement issued on Friday, September 20, 1996 relating to the law follows:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is marriage unconstitutional? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1774981 - 08/03/03 07:48 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

that's because Bill Clinton is a raging heterosexual.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,262
Re: Is marriage unconstitutional? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1775307 - 08/03/03 01:31 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

No matter who the president is, and feel that gays shouldn't be married, is FUCKED UP.

Its like they dont have the same civil rights as straight people. Just like the blacks and whites. Fuck this bullshit.....I can't believe what I read in the paper a few days back.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator

Re: Is marriage unconstitutional? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1775311 - 08/03/03 01:34 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

They took it, de facto, like many other things.

It is an interesting point that perhaps they have no right or obligation to 'sanction' any union between anyone. It, simply, isn't any of their business. (But there are many things that fall into that category)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Third prize is you're fired
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,254
Loc: Where Art Meets Crime
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Is marriage unconstitutional? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1776747 - 08/03/03 11:13 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Its definitely in the best intrrest of the government to make marraige a legal matter. If you think about it, marraige is essentially a contract between two people. The government would want that contract legal and recognizable to the state.
throughout US history marraige has formed the ecenomic and social roles of men and women. A predominatley male governments in the 18th , 19th and early 20th centuries preserve the ,male head of household status and lack of voting rights for women preserved the males' dominance in the political realm.
making a marriage recognized in the eyes of the state also protects the woman if her husband breaks his contract with her and deserts her with 5 kids. The state can punish the husband and force child support payments, alimony, ect.
Married men tend to commit less crime than signle males.
By controlling the capaicity in which one could marry, the government in the 18th and 19th century could deny interracial marriages and even would not allow slaves to legally marry. Thus assuring whites breed with whites and minorities remained oppressed. It seems the monogamas, commonlaw christian marraige was preferred by US government in those centuries. Indians and mormons and immigrants with varying 'styles' of marraige (concubining, polygamy, dowry) were persuaded to marry the fed's way in order to gain citizenship.
And finally but most importantly-- the government can make money off of the action. Certificates are like $200 in some states and married couples who both work are taxed higher than single people becuz combining incomes shoots them into a higher tax bracket.

If it weren't for the bloody corpses, I wouldn't have any corpses at all.

There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: start climbing or sit on an acorn.

Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator

Registered: 09/25/00
Posts: 2,276
Re: Is marriage unconstitutional? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1776791 - 08/03/03 11:33 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Clarence Thomas weighs in:


" We have said that Congress may regulate not only "Commerce... among the several states," U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a "substantial effect" on such commerce... [I]t seems to me that the power to regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination." - from the Lopez case.

Thomas' reiteration of the fact that the federal government has no constitutional role in deciding civil marriage is a statement of clear conservative principles. But the theocrats and social conservatives don't give a damn if federalism ends up with results they don't like. That's why they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. They suspect that's unconstitutional. So what to do? Change the constitution!

This would seem to have bearing on gun and drug laws, as well. Thomas also thinks that the feds have no jurisdiction in sodomy laws, though he deemed such laws 'exceedingly sill'.

I got the above from andrewsullivan.com

Edited by wingnutx (08/03/03 11:34 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush Pushes Gay Marriage Ban
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 2,886 36 06/05/06 06:03 PM
by Redstorm
* California strikes down ban on gay marriage.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
johnm214 5,784 67 06/24/08 07:23 PM
by johnm214
* Gay Marriage Ban fails in Maryland gluke bastid 615 2 01/24/06 01:53 AM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* U.S. to probe alleged mortgage discrimination SeussA 968 3 12/09/10 10:51 AM
by lonestar2004
* Oppose Stealthy Attempts to Promote Marriage Discrimination silversoul7 390 2 07/14/04 02:49 AM
by JPZ
* Gay Marriage thoughts
( 1 2 3 all )
mozartvicious 2,058 59 04/19/09 08:27 PM
by Yrat
* Compared to George Bush, Clinton was Conservative
( 1 2 all )
Skeptikos 3,618 31 01/20/06 02:11 AM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* Dennis Prager vs. Perez Hilton (Same Sex Marriage Issue)
( 1 2 3 all )
Syle 2,216 49 04/24/09 01:35 PM
by johnm214

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
658 topic views. 6 members, 3 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.