Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 2) For opponents of the "Marriage Amendment," the question of family > structure has already been largely decided in their favor. Same sex > couples have many opportunities to be parents and are doing so, with > or without the blessing of marriage. This question appears to be a > mute point. > > For them, this is about the right of homosexual couples to benefits > that are accorded to hetrosexual couples as the result of marriage. Thanks for your effort to divorce us from the emotional aspects of this issue and present an objective analysis of both sides of the argument, and your post contains a number of insightful questions that should be addressed, but I think it's worth repeating (since the objective bystanders still don't seem to have gotten the message) that it's the *supporters* of the gender-specific marriage amendment who have *chosen* to make this an issue of rights by immediately seeking constitutional relief. The Constitution is about rights and nothing else. I may or may not favor gays and lesbians getting married (and I know even my gay friends have mixed opinions), but I haven't really thought about that because I'm not gay and I don't really give a damn. I know why I got married. I AM, however, strongly opposed to a constitutional amendment designed to do nothing but prevent gays and lesbians from enjoying the same privileges and responsibilities as the rest of us, as futile as I think that will prove to be once cooler heads have time to consider the ramifications. Maybe gays just don't feel like they can argue convincingly over which way to hang the toilet paper out of wedlock, I don't care. I just don't want to see the Constitution tinkered with over it. Churches already have a host of proscriptions about who they will or will not marry and the government can't force them to accept or reject anyone--total religious freedom. If you don't happen to like the set of rules one church has around its marriage ceremony, then get married in a different church--one that agrees with you. If that's not enough to make you switch churches, then it sure as hell isn't enough reason to change the Constitution. Think. But, I'm afraid, Tim, that in order for this debate to be couched in terms of the core questions you suggest, those who oppose gay marriage are going to have to, first, lay down the constitutional cudgel. That will make it an issue of something other than rights. It will also, however, disarm those who may be seeking to use this issue to make an emotion-bound circus out of the next presidential election, which is what I believe is really the motivation that underlies this whole magilla. Conservatives have constitutional attorneys, too, and, believe me, they know better than to put any credence in amending state constitutions for this purpose other than as a means to abuse the justice system to instigate a long, costly, highly-charged, media circus, especially focused in those states whose electoral votes may be up for grabs. What it is. Guy Western the West Side _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
