Not yet. When amending the Constitution, we need to consider what is best for us socially.
I don’t think most of us, including our leaders, understand what impact gay marriage would have on our nation. More open-minded dialogue (vs. gut reaction) is needed before any action is taken, pro or con.
Whatever we do should not impinge on the rights of religious organizations to hold to, and act on, their beliefs. This is a deeply spiritual issue for most and it will take patience, time and respect to ever come to acceptance on this issue, from both sides.
No. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all. The best solution would be to separate the legal benefits and the religious benefits.
Civil unions would be recognized by the government and church marriages would not. Everyone should have the same rights as I do, to be able to make decisions for my husband if he were medically incapacitated, for example.
If we are trying to spread democracy throughout the world, we are not setting a good example if we pass this amendment.
Absolutely not! None of the arguments supporting this proposal hold up under close scrutiny.
We must not amend our Constitution based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, hatred or religion.
In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races: “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis … is surely to deprive all of liberty without due process of law. The freedom of choice to marry (may) not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.”
The gay marriage amendment should fail for the same reasons.
Speaking as the more fortunate half of a couple soon to breeze by our 38th, I feel that any two people, gay or otherwise, who think they can live happily together into the distant future should be afforded the opportunity to give it a try.
Love is the operative word here. Absence of love is hate/fear. Those who would deny these people love are haters, fear mongers.
Besides, such an amendment confuses the boundaries between state and church, traditional legal jurisdictions, and Oprah and Dr. Phil. If this is feasible, then let’s also have a law that permits state troopers to summarily execute drunk drivers who cause accidents.
No. The institution of marriage is not threatened when loving and committed persons of the same sex legalize their union.
This amendment was proposed by an incumbent president hoping both to garner conservative votes and to divert attention away from the disastrous results of his domestic and international policies.
Ultimately it is about as relevant as the amendment proposed in 1912 to prevent “abhorrent and repugnant marriages” between persons of different skin color. Let’s hope that legislated homophobia will eventually go the way of the Jim Crow laws.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Centrists are likely extinct