Here it comes
The TN legislature has started pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:
A proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Tennessee is moving forward again.
The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee approved the legislation 7-2 Tuesday. It will now be scheduled for debate in the full Senate.
Tennessee law already defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but Republicans say they are trying to prevent courts from allowing gay marriages in other states from being recognized in Tennessee.
The Legislature approved the ban last session by a simple majority, and now it needs a two-thirds majority this session before the question can be put to voters on a gubernatorial ballot.
Sadly, this will likely pass in Tennessee.
February 16th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
“Sadly”?
If you want to see what the consequences of legalizing gay marriage in America would be, look at what’s happening in Canada where gay marriage is likely to be approved in the near future. Polygamists have seized the opportunity to claim that if marriage is no longer defined as a union between one man and one woman, then it is discriminatory to prevent a change in the law to redefine marriage to also mean a union between one man and several women. What’s next, a union between a man and his pet? At some point the institution of marriage loses all meaning.
John McKellar commented in yesterday’s National Post (subscription only) on the silent gay majority, and underscored what many of us have suspected for a long time: marriage is not a priority for the majority of gays and lesbians. It is, in fact, totally at odds with the lifestyle.
It appears to me that the gay marriage issue is nothing more than a smoke-screen. The gay agenda has been hijacked by those who despise Christianity in an attempt to attack one of its core values: the family.
February 16th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
You’re seriously comparing gay people to animals?
The only consequence of gay marriage would be affording the same rights that currently married couples have to gay couples (such as the right to inheritance, the right to make medical decisions for loved ones, tax benefits, etc.)
And I don’t care about polygamy. If they choose to get married, so be it. My marriage is a choice I made to be loyal to my wife. I take it seriously. At the end of the day, it is a pledge we made and I could care less if it is state approved other than from the benefit standpoint mentioned above.
Or you could ask britney spears about the sanctity of marriage. Or liz taylor. Or half of all married couples.
I support gay marriage and am a Christian.
February 17th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Maybe if conservative Christians weren’t so uptight about their own sex lives, they wouldn’t be so obsessed with what other people do with theirs.
I’ve always been amused by the irony of the conservative movement: the government is too involved, and needs to stay out of the way. Except when it comes to individuals doing things we think are icky.
February 17th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Therein lies the philosophical difference between supporting and opposing gay marriage. If the state institution doesn’t mean anything to you, why not extend it to everybody? Then again, aside from the benefits you addressed (which can be taken care of with civil unions or by other means), why does anyone care if they’re excluded from it?
February 17th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Uncle, Sarah’s right. Ff you abandon one part of the definition of marriage as “two people, of opposite sex, human, of sufficient age, and not related” you’re opening the door to changing any other part.
As long as gay marriage is instituted as a law, there’s no problem, because the boundaries can be defined to just changing the opposite sex part. But if the current definition of marriage is overturned by judicial opinion or executive order, there really is no telling where it leads. I didn’t buy the argument when I first read it, but it’s true.