Comments on: Good Riddance

By: ajacksonian

ajacksonian — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:20:24 +0000

I have always been for separating the contractual part of marriage from the spiritual part. If societies wish to give some recompense and rewards to those that do parenting, then those caring for children should be seen as the objects of praise. And if those in dedicated relationships find that is satisfactory between them and have spiritual benefit, I really see no need to add to that with anything else.

But then I have this weird idea of actually rewarding good actions… such a silly notion, I know.

And I also call actions for what they are and do… strangely I am not a mind reader and cannot fathom intentions. How others can see an action and *instantly* read another’s mind to ferret out intentions is beyond me. Must be some sort of magic book that I passed over at a second-hand bookstore or some such….

By: Ubu Roi

Ubu Roi — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:23:40 +0000

Ah, but if it’s a constitutional amendment, that’s not a problem.

I don’t agree with constitutional amendments for social issues, like marriage and abortion–it’s not a slippery slope, it’s jumping off the cliff. The constitution is a contract between the people and the government they set up. It governs government, not people; it doesn’t grant rights, it affirms them and prohibts government infringement. The constituition is not for the purpose of one group of people forcing their beliefs on another group. In our governmental setup, that’s rightly a part of the political process; all the constituition is supposed to do is establish the framework for that process and limit government.

By: DrHeinous

DrHeinous — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:01:27 +0000

And that isn’t even considering any arguments against it from a Federalist perspective. Marriage has always been the domain of the states (exactly _what_ portion of the Constitution did the Defense of Marriage act fall under?).

I have to admit it is that which riles me the most.

By: zip77077

zip77077 — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:50:16 +0000

Call me cynical, but his statement, “America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives. In our free society, decisions about a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people.” sort of flies in the face of what he was trying to promote. The people have decided 49-48, you lose.

I still have not heard a good arguement on how gay marriage threatens good old fashioned hetro marriages.

BTW, all the time and effort used on this political charade could have been put to good use finding a way to balance the budget.