Oh, this REAKS...

[feren]

I just got a pointer to this thanks to one of Kette's friends, who made a comment in her journal about this. Do I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment? You bet your sweet ass I do. This is a free country, and people who love one another should be allowed to join in a union regardless of their gender/race/religion/whatever. Some up-tight group has decided that this needs to be stopped because it's contributing to the moral decay of America (Yeah, sure... see my earlier rant, Control Your Goddamn Progeny if you want my take on that one), and have proposed an amendment to the Constitution to have it read something along the lines of "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and woman."

Here is where I call bullshit. This needs to stop right here and right now. Please, everyone, even if you don't believe in gay rights, at least see how easily this can lead to laws that trample on personal freedoms and rights that you DO care about, and go to http://www.petitiononline.com/0712t001/petition.html and put your name to this. Slap this down before people start thinking they have the right to define WHO and WHAT you marry -- or worse.

Comments

wait, i'm confused

[yakkette.livejournal.com]

I can't find any online info on this federal marriage amendment, so I gathered from pogo's entry that it was something that I think I've already heard abotu which would simply say that a marriage in one state would not necessarily be vaild in another - which does uphold state rights, unfortunately if they're bigoted stupid ass states. But if it's an amendment with that 'marriage is only between a man or a woman' crap, then i heartily oppose that and feel that duh, it infringes on state rights and is evil anyway.
I'm confused now, which one is it?

Re: wait, i'm confused

[pogo101.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. The primary purpose of the proposed amendment, in my view, is to CONFINE same-sex unions to those individual states that begin recognizing them -- i.e., to bar the Full Faith and Credit clause from spreading those unions' legal recognition to other states.

But an amendment to the Constitution CAN effectively bar individual states from doing things. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are excellent examples. Now then: would the proposed amendment bar Hawaii, Vermont and the other forty-eight states from recognizing marriage as a matter of THOSE OWN STATES' INTERNAL AFFAIRS? I don't know. But, again, I don't see such as the *primary* impetus behind this amendment drive.