March 27, 2013
-
Is Gay Marriage Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court heard arguments today that might forever impact gay marriage in the U.S. Here is the link: Link
I must admit I am having a hard time understanding why the Supreme Court would not make gay marriage legal.There is nothing in the constitution forbidding gay marriage. Even if you have a belief system that teaches that gay marriage is wrong, the Supreme Court should not take your feeling or belief into consideration.I am not sure why this is not a cut and dry case. Popular opinion is not relevant.Is gay marriage unconstitutional?
Comments (119)
No it is not.
It’s allowed under Canada’s Constitution. It’s also totally legal here. I heard something about that case but didn’t know details. That’s big.
Who cares? Keep the government out of it and let people decide for themselves who they want to be with.
The government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage
@jmallory - yeah, what they said
Not in itself, but the law (Prop 8) was written by laymen, and may be unconstitutional.
I think marriage itself is not addressed in the Constitution except in the broadest of terms. It’s only an issue here for people who once again want to use government as a battering ram to tell other people what to do. Besides, having the government define marriage somehow cheapens the whole idea…
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The founders did not write this with the intention to include african americans, but times changed. I believe times are changing again and that it should include all people regardless of their sexuality. Hopefully it does not take a civil war to bring about this change.
-Shadowrunner81(asexual)
Gay marriage bans are absolutely unconstitutional.
They are doubly so. In withholding the full recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians, gay marriage bans violate the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. In differenting gays and straights on little more than irrational animus, they violate the equal protection clause of the same amendment.
If
you have to beg permission, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. Rights
are an inherent part of being a human being, and if there’s a law about
it, the people in control already have control of your “rights.”
So, I do not think that gay marriage unconstitutional. However, no matter what, since there’s going to be a law about it, you can’t call it a right. It becomes a privilege, because you’ve given the right away by letting it be controlled by a law. Hence, you cannot call it “gay marriage rights.”
KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE!!! Unless I’m gay. Or smoke weed. Or might be considering an abortion. Or think that Arab–looking people should be frisked at the airport.
I think that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against people because of a sexual preference. They should be allowed to do everything that straight people do. It doesn’t make any sense to me either. Wouldn’t it help the economy everyone were allowed to get married?
It may not be specifically addressed by the constitution, but the equal protection of the laws is. If you have straight marriage with all its rights and privileges recognized and enforced by the government, then you have to allow gay marriage under the same terms.
It shouldn’t matter whether or not it’s constitutional or how other people feel about it. Relationships are a private affair. The government should have nothing to do with it. As for people who don’t believe in it, so what? No body’s making them do it. They just don’t get to stop other people from doing it. Or they shouldn’t anyway. Not their personal business. You know?
Is it constitutional? Ask the supreme court!
@crazy2love - By that logic, freedom and equality aren’t rights either.
Something funny happened in the courtroom today. A lawyer arguing to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage made their primary case, that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. Justice Kagan interrupted himto ask if he was suggesting the government should deny marriages between a man and a woman over the age of 55. When the lawyer explained it is rare that in the case of people over the age of 55 both are infertile Kagan again interrupted and said, I can assure you that when a man and a woman over the age of 55 marry not many kids are coming out of that family. That provoked a burst of laughter in the courtroom. Also, Chief Justice Roberts might have been wondering if the anti-gay argument inferred his marriage is invalid. Justice Roberts and his wife did not procreate. They adopted their two children.
From what I heard from the anti same-sex marriage lawyers I’m not convinced they even believe in their side’s argument. They sound like defense attorneys, required to defend a client they know to be guilty of the crime.
@xsimplepleasuresx - Yes, including a woman’s right to vote or the right to be paid equally for the same job a man does.
@TheSutraDude - Don’t forget about slavery.
@xsimplepleasuresx - That too. A conservative at CPAC posed the question, why should African Americans complain about slavery?….They were given free food and roofs over their heads. He got chuckles from the audience for that.
They just don’t want to change something that they thought would always be the same and if they allow gay marriage then it opens up all the other issues like housing and tax things, children with gay parents custody and stuff like that. It should just be the same as it is for straight people but it’s not. For example in Australia Men always get the short straw when it comes to custody issues, the mother is almost always at favour. I have seen this happen with my own step dad. However, if there was two dads or two mums then what happens? There’s all kinds of grey areas. Perhaps allowing gay marriage, opens up a pandora’s box of sorts.
Of course gay marriage is unconstitutional. Read the Bible (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 specifically).
Marriage isn’t the government’s business, period. The government’s job is to treat us all equally under the law. Leave marriage to the people.
let people who love each other get married.
No, I don’t think its unconstitutional. But I also don’t think its constitutional to be allowed to decide what gender people may marry. I don’t think politics has anything to do with anyone’s sexual orientation. its their life. If you don’t like it, don’t join it. just don’t be bashing on it.
I heard someone break it down to me one time about “WHY” it was unconstitutional, but that was a long time ago, and I don’t remember much of the argument.
Regardless… I don’t necessarily think the issue is whether gays can marry/should marry/want to marry, etc… I don’t know that if we allowed it anything would really change.
HOWEVER, I believe that just as we’d want to protect gay people and their relationships from “icky religious folk” similar to the Westboro Baptist Church, I think within this allowance there needs to be a law protecting churches as well. There are (for instance) plenty of churches that will accept gay people, however there are PLENTY that won’t. And they shouldn’t be forced to. Neither should a pastor be held up, sued, etc for not marrying two men or women if he believes that it’s morally wrong. As I said, there are plenty of churches who would be willing to perform such an act.
I (personally) wouldn’t want to see harm come to the gay couple in any way, but at the same time, I wouldn’t want this to impact churches and schools the way that I believe that it will.
For instance. Similarly to how I do not believe (And this is MY opinion, so please bare with me, you’re not going to convince me otherwise) that public schools should be teaching sex education to children or young adults. I don’t believe that they should be teaching sex education AND gay sex practices.
I believe that relationships and sexuality are personal. They might be right, they might be wrong, but I think they always stay behind closed doors and remain between you, your partner and God.
I don’t think the government should be involved, really and I don’t think that the schools should be “teaching” about it. (Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that HEALTH is a different matter and that teaching about STD’S and such things in health might be necessary. Teaching young people about sex however, when they’re still trying to understand themselves, I do not believe is right.)
Overall? I think the whole thing could be solved overnight if the darn government would get OUT of marriage altogether. The only reason they’re anywhere near it in the first place is greed. If marriage was left up to the people then you could freaking say that you were married to whoever.
(Of course there should still be laws about rape, statutory rape, incest, and bestiality, etc.) but, whatever…
My two cents always ends up being at least a dime.
I like all of the people saying the government should stay out of this. Odds are they have forgotten that marriage is supported by governmental benefits. As long as those exist, the government SHOULD be involved. Otherwise, take the benefits out.
Simple as.
But people also don’t know that marriage in and of itself was ALWAYS based in legal proceedings. The very foundation of marriage was built upon the combining of families/clans to merge their commodities and stock in order to gain larger standing in their tribes/villages. It was always a legally binding contract that was upheld by whatever ruling class/government was in place.
Ergo, marriage was, is, and always will be a governmentally based institution. Not a religious one.
@crazy2love - So with you. But if we are talking rights, think about women and blacks having to fight to vote? Just still think some things aren’t anyone’s decision. Does that make sense?
I just think it is amusing that we are even having to debate this issue at all.
You hear a big issue right now is if famous people should support milk?
Some things are just dumb. We fight because we can.
I think that marriage should be influenced by the people and the government.
That being said I agree about church’s not having to go against there beliefs to marry Gays.
The license, and the right to be married is what they want.
They want to be equal in the eyes of the law,
Gays, Blacks, Women, and children will NEVER be equal in everyone’s eyes, but that doesn’t mean that we should stop the equal in laws.
People are people.
It doesn’t matter what they look like, talk like, or what and where they put there genitals as long as it doesn’t harm someone else.
When will people understand this?
I just feel like this should have went through the system long ago, and been through it very fast without so much SHIT.
People have a right to marry anyone they wish too.
If you couldn’t marry your loved one based on the reason you are a man or women would you beg for your right to be in love with that person?
I think everyone that is thinking reasonable would come to the same conclusion.
Let them marry.
There is NOTHING law wise that stops it.
There is my rapid bit of 4 am crap.
Lol. Live long and Prosper.
@LKJSlain - ”… I think within this allowance there needs to be a law protecting churches as well. There are (for instance) plenty of churches that will accept gay people…. Neither should a pastor be held up, sued, etc for not marrying two men or women if he believes that it’s morally wrong. As I said, there are plenty of churches who would be willing to perform such an act. ”
A couple points:
1. Basic speech protections would shield religious institutions from being forced to accept or interact with gays and lesbians. This was a popoular argument and fear of religious folks during the various state gay marriage bills, and it is, in my view, deliberate misinformation propagated by “traditional marriage” groups.
2. Even if this fear is founded, the rights of marriage outweigh. In the happiness, dignity, and quality of life of human beings, being able to marry and have a socially recognized family is more important than the inconvenience of unwanted members in church doors.
“Overall? I think the whole thing could be solved overnight if the darn government would get OUT of marriage altogether. The only reason they’re anywhere near it in the first place is greed.”
That’s not true. Government recognition of marriage extends back to Colonial America and father back still, to England. The English government had been recognizing marriages as far back as the Middle Ages. Furthermore, looking across the world, Marriage certificates is issued by most other countries in the world (I don’t know of a single exception). My parents, for instance, were married in the nation of Taiwan before they were recognized as married in the United States.
Government is best as a central recognizing body. Just as our states certifies one’s ability to drive and one’s qualifications for military drafts, they are also in the best position to recognize marriage-like relationships. The problem is when prejudicial folks wrongly exclude categories of people from being married– whether it be on lines of race or orientation.
I’d say that we should end the idea of state-licensed marriage entirely. Let them all be civil unions insofar as the government is concerned–polygamy and polyandry too, no reason why these can’t be allowed–and let religions decide what to define as what is “marriage” and what is not. Marriage then becomes a purely religious rite, akin to baptism or any other rite, and not a state-ordained and -blessed institution.
-netnguy
@Celestial_Teapot -
Government recognition of marriage extends back to Colonial America and father back still, to England.
Uh-hmm, yes, that’s because England had a “state religion”.
I thought we wanted away from that, given all the horror that Christianity and all other supposedly loving and benign religions inflicted on people anytime they were given access to the levers of state power?
-netnguy
@netnguy - Uh-hmm, yes, that’s because England had a “state religion”.
England was actually taking over the role of marriage recognition and recordkeeping from the church.
@netnguy - I’d say that we should end the idea of state-licensed marriage entirely.
I’d like there to be world peace. Idyllic daydreaming, however nice, shouldn’t prevent us from dealing the real world as it is.
Marriage is here to stay, and as long as state recognition of marriage exists, it recognition shouldn’t be discriminated from groups of individuals on little more than irrational prejudice.
“Let them all be civil unions insofar as the government is concerned… Marriage then becomes a purely religious rite, akin to baptism or any other rite, and not a state-ordained and -blessed institution.”
You’re saying that all non-religious couples should be demoted as second-class citizens while those affiliated religion should retain first-class status. This would be discrimination on basis of religion.
Marriage, in its essence, is a secular institution. Atheists and non-Christians understand and embrace marriage just as Christians.
If marriage is to be controlled/given by the goverment then yes, but if marriage is to be done by ones religious organization, then no. I can say for sure the government should do civil unions for tax purposes, but I cant say the same for marriages (and just to clarify, my comment applies to gay and strait).
@Celestial_Teapot - “Marriage, in its essence, is a secular
institution. Atheists and non-Christians understand and embrace marriage
just as Christians.”
If that is true, and I think it is, then why cant they find or make their own organizations to perform marriages. I dont think it is discrimination, but if religious people get married in a church, then why cant non-religious people get married somewhere in a community that adheres to their non-belief. And as far as the government is concerned, with civil unions, they would have the same rights as a married couple.
The two times I’ve married I had to get a blood test and a license. Seems to me that somehow the government is and has been in the business of licensing marriages for as long as I have been alive. So you are wanting to do away with all licensing? I can live with that can you? PS — I wonder what was the rationale for blood tests? I think I know, do you? @firetyger -
@LKJSlain - some good thoughts here!
@Doubledb - The fight for marriage equality is largely a struggle for equal rights and equal recognition. I don’t think most supporters of same-sex marriage are actually looking to force churches to conduct marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.
“And as far as the government is concerned, with civil unions, they would have the same rights as a married couple.”
The distinction between “Civil Unions” and “Marriage” is, in and of itself, a form of discrimination. It was created solely to withhold from gays and lesbians, the full recognition and prestige associated with marriage.
@Celestial_Teapot - If I was a minister who performed marriages and felt it was religiously wrong for me to perform gay marriages but was told I had to by the goverment, then I would chose not to marry anyone. Then, people would have to get married by someone else or get married at the justice of the peace. If they got married at the courthouse, it would NOT be different from anyone else.
The problem is, are we talking about the right to love and marry someone else (and get the rights involved) OR the right to force others who believe differently from you to accept and condone what you do? Some churches do not allow alcohol on their premises either, but it is legal to drink, so should churches be told they cannot ban alcohol? Personally, I think I have come to the conclusion that gay people can do what they want and should be allowed, so long as they do not force it on anyone else.
The same problem sometimes comes from feminist who feel they are oppressed by men; however, instead of looking for equality, they see men as mean and ignorant… so, instead of being equal they want women to be in charge, that just means reverse oppression. My problem with gay marriage is not the marriage but the possibility for reverse oppression towards those who do not believe the same. It is just trading one oppression for another. If this is respected, at this point I really do not care, so long as their beliefs and mine are respected. But I said years ago that I knew this issue would only grow and cause a rift between our culture and the church. Why? Because culture changes a lot faster than the church, and that pressure from the culture will either make a large rift between the two (negative thoughts/feelings) or make the church into the culture (a civic religion as it were). Both are not good.
Former President Bill Clinton responds:
“It depends on what the meaning of is, is.”
My sister asked me why the church hates the gay people and I said,”well, I think their view is that gay and pedofiles are the same.” She said,”oh, I see now.”
i agree with your thoughts Dan
@crazy2love -
If you have to beg permission, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. Rights
are an inherent part of being a human being, and if there’s a law about
it, the people in control already have control of your “rights.”
You have a right to vote, don’t you? There are laws governing when and how you may cast your ballot. What about a right to speech and press? It is illegal for you to steal and print classified military documents.
You entirely misunderstand the meaning of “rights” in the Constitutional context.
The U.S. Constitution sets out the rules for law making– how it is gone about and the boundaries of it. Outside the boundaries are protected rights– like that of speech, religion, press, of criminal due process, and that against unwarranted searches and seizures. While constitutionally protected rights can’t be infringed, they may be regulated.
At the moment the Supreme Court is supposed to be deciding if an individual state may define for itself what a marriage is or is not. It is doubtful that the constitution supplies a federal definition of “marriage.” What the federal government does not legislate is up to the states to do so if they wish.
So IF the Supreme Court offers a new national definition of their own for “marriage” they will be over-stepping their own judicial boundaries and also stepping on states’ rights. In short, if the court dictates their own definition of marriage to the states they will have become legislators and not judges.
The larger difficulty is that in America religions have long provided the definition of marriage and the government has borrowed or adopted that definition. If the government wishes to create a new non-religious similar but different meaning for “marriage” then it really ought to call it something different as well.
Perhaps it would be best to leave traditional ”marriage” defined as it is (i.e. a man and a woman making a civil and often religious contract) and for the government to adopt a new term for non-traditional “marriage.” “Civil unions” was such a good term, I thought. However, other options might include “domestic contracts” or “secular wedding” or “state wedding.”
Whatever term is applied it really ought to be different from that of “marriage” since marriage has an historic meaning that goes back thousands of years.
@LKJSlain - as it stands, churches can refuse to marry a couple for any reason. last year, a church refused to marry a black couple. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple-in-mississippi/
going to war without congress approving, federal taxes, gun control, and prohibition are unconstitutional. we do it anything so the constitution means nothing. its just another piece of paper that controls our lives, like money.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I understand, but once something is a national law like “Gays are allowed to marry” I don’t know how much room a person/church will have to say they do not wish to participate.
Gay marriage shouldn’t be the government’s business, yet one of the biggest arguments in favor of gay marriage is to receive federal benefits and tax incentives. Therefore, it IS the government’s business whether it becomes legal or not.
@sbhasty - where ya been?
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - hence my comment regarding greed.
@LKJSlain - If Churches, Pastors or any individual are not forced to perform marriages of couples they see as unfit but avenues for unfit (gay) couples are made availible which will be recognised by the state , would you be in favor of it?
@tendollar4ways - My entire thoughts on the whole issue are complicated and would take up way more space than I’m willing to write out here. I’d probably confuse you in my answer as well haha.
Let’s just say I won’t be crying, screaming, angry, or anything else if it happens.
^_^
I love people, period.
@Celestial_Teapot - It is unreasonable to allow government to regulate marriage and ask for it to be non-discriminatory against specific parties. Any entity that provides benefits has every right to deny those benefits.
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - “Any entity that provides benefits has every right to deny those benefits.”
Not in the case of Constitutionally provided rights. When the Supreme Court struck down state interracial marriage bans in Loving v. Virginia, they clarified that the right of marriage is a Constutionally protected fundamental right.
Yes: Government has the right to regular protected rights (i.e. speech, press, abortion), they can only do so with a legitimate state interest. In the case of same-sex marriage bans, there is no good reason for curbing much less fully removing the right than irrational anti-gay animus.
I’m not American, so forgive me if I am not totally au fait with your constitution, but isn’t there a phrase in your Declaration of Independence about “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of gayness”, or something like that?
The Constitution doesn’t make any distinction on marriage. They Constitution allows for equal protection under the law, so gay couples as civil unions being afforded equal rights as married couples would be getting equal protection under the law. The title solely of marriage isn’t a protection under the law.
The attorney against proposition 8 was saying that the rules or benefits aren’t enough, that the title matters. The title of marriage is important to people in favour of same-sex marriage because to them it would mean the government sanctions homosexuality. I’m sorry, but marriage isn’t meant to be a lifestyle approval mechanism.
not yet…
like Kenneth replied I am shocked that some one can get paid $6978 in four weeks on the computer. did you see this site link http://www.Cloud65.com
Gay marriage in the sense of multiple, consenting adults signing a series of lifelong contracts is a right every free citizen has.
Gay marriage in the sense of special tax exemption is a form of theft in the same way heterosexual marriage is, and in the same way IRS-sanctioned religious institutions who don’t pay taxes are; no citizen should be affected by a private contract between OTHER consenting parties, unless he too has consented to it. Constitutionally speaking, marriage was meant as a private affair, both before and after signed into contract If it is rewarded in monies from the government then it is a public affair, thereby no longer private and subject to the will of those whom it affects, including religious bigots.
@hutatita - SPAMMER SPAMMER
Not only can I fuck a goat in Texas, I can marry it and live happily ever after til the day I die. I legally have more rights when it comes to beastiality than I do a member of my own species. Gotta love that logic.
I, too, don’t understand why this isn’t very cut and dry. I can understand banning gay marriage under certain religions/church (and that’s just based upon the place of worship), but to deny marriage benefits under law?
~Aquila~
“What is Love”
The marriage law that Obama the dictator nulled said, marriage is between one man and one woman. If we go against the Laws of the Eternal Father in heaven, where in the Scripture it says it is wrong, we will be setting ourselves up for fast down fall and no more a Super power.
Remember, like it or not we were founded on Religious principles and the Scripture. Bro. Doc
@BroDoc - “Remember, like it or not we were founded on Religious principles and the Scripture”
Which religious principles are that?
It is obviously not! Why they’re making a big deal of this is beyond me. All I know one day it will be in the books and gay marriage will eventually be legalized everywhere…just like pot
I think that the government needs to remove its nosey nose from marriage all together. I personally think that if two people want to be recognized as a “legal” couple then our government should create a “legal partnership” for legal purposes. All couples (male, female, whatever) should have to do the paperwork to become a “legal partnership”. Marriage should be left to religion. If your religion allows male-male or female-female then go for it. But if your religion does not, then find a new religion. So basically all couples (no matter who they are) would be allowed the rights of a couple but if they wanted a “religious marriage” as well then they would have to go through everything that their religion would require.
@seriously_meredith - “Marriage should be left to religion.”
Why?
@Celestial_Teapot - The one founded in the Scripture. They went on what was written in the Scriptures. And they were using the 1599 Geneva Scriptures. And they believed by faith what was written there. Bro. Doc
@BroDoc - You claimed that the Constitution was founded on religious scripture, and so far, you’ve provided no evidence towards the claim.
If anything, the First Amendment of the Constitution establishes a secular republic and clarified a separation between church and state.
@Celestial_Teapot – Marriage may be Constitutionally protected, but the federal-provided benefits for marriage are not. The government, for example, can choose to deny benefits to persons who don’t comply with certain laws and regulations or don’t meet certain criteria. Thus, it is unreasonable to have the government not regulate marriage yet expect the government to provide said benefits to individuals who do marry.
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - “Marriage may be Constitutionally protected, but the federal-provided benefits for marriage are not. ”
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects against discrimination of any group without a legitimate state interest. Marriage are denied to gays for nothing more than irrational animus. In the same way, states could not ban interracial marriage on racism alone.
“ The government, for example, can choose to deny benefits to persons who don’t comply with certain laws and regulations or don’t meet certain criteria. ”
In this case, they are being withheld through the denial of a general right to marriage.
Technically, wouldn’t marriage be unconstitutional? I mean, is there anything in the Constitution about marriage? The only issue is whether the Constitution grants that states determine marriage laws… then, the question becomes whether or not the federal government can tell individual states what it must do concerning state marriage laws.
Bottom line… aren’t we at a point yet where legality of gay marriage shouldn’t be an issue anymore? Just allow it and move on already.
@vexations - If you’ve paid much attention to what I’ve advocated on here for years, yes, I do want to do away with licensing. I’d be the first in line to hand in my marriage license. A piece of paper has no bearing on who I choose to love or make a personal commitment to. The government needs to butt out of people’s personal lives.
@firetyger - “A piece of paper has no bearing on who I choose to love or make a personal commitment to.”
No, but it does facilitate the application of rights and privileges associated with marriage. It’d also be an easy means of proofing your marriage to others for whatever legal that may arise.
@TiredSoVeryTired - “is there anything in the Constitution about marriage?”
The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been interpreted to guarantee basic and fundamental rights. Amongst these is the right to marriage.
“question becomes whether or not the federal government can tell individual states what it must do concerning state marriage laws.”
Governments have to have pretty friggin’ good reasons to curb Constitutionally protected rights. IMO, DOMA is motivated by little more than prejudice against gays and lesbians, and not any legitimate state interest.
Most states no longer require a blood test or a waiting period and I agree with you I just wondered if you knew what had originally prompted these laws. Now of course, the bottom line on much of this argument is related to inheritance taxes and income taxes. If not for that and common law marriage laws, the so called “right” to marriage would be irrelevant. If I had my way, congress would met only ever third year so they would have to live with laws passed for at least that period of time. And no, I am not a regular reader nor one who often comments about political issues@firetyger -
What prompted all of this? Issues related to taxes!
Hell no, it’s not unconstitutional. What’s unconstitutional is the discrimination and unequal rights that gay people are faced with everyday. I live in a small, backwards southern town, and you should hear some of the things that come out of people’s mouths. It’s sickening. I wish the hyper-religious, prejudicied people would pay attention to a few other verses in the Bible, like, oh I don’t know “Don’t judge others” and “He who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Love thy neighbor” maybe?
@BroDoc - Actually, the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. The Constitution clearly reflects their desire to keep religion and government completely separated. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion, and those who are not Christians shouldn’t have to live according to moral codes and rules they themselves do not believe in. I am a Christian myself, but I do not feel the need or desire to shove my personal beliefs down other people’s throats.
Same-Sex Marriage should be legal. We all have the right to be happy, just as the constitution says, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The bible is not the law here in America. If it were, the jails would have to be the size of Texas.
A federal mandate is unconstitutional. This falls under state authority and should be determined by local mores just like obscenity laws and liquor laws.
@Celestial_Teapot - Marriage has always been defined as “A union between a man and woman” in a traditional sense and in a legal sense. Only recently has that definition been amended in some circles to include same sex. Ergo, it makes sense that interracial marriage bans can’t be upheld Constitutionally but same sex marriage bans can.
@ForeverYoung_xQuotes - Actually the founding Father were not deists. I have too much proof in writing that they were not. I have a prayer that Pres. G. Washington prayed that would make most Preachers look bad, and he was directing to the Father in Heaven, and He was praying to Him, just like you would be talking to someone.
You may think they were Deist, but no they were not. They were men that understood whom He was and I believe by what I read they were saved. Bro. Doc
@Celestial_Teapot - Right, but marriage isn’t a specific part of the U.S. Constitution. So, gay marriage cannot be unconstitutional. Federal rights vs. State rights will end up being the issue that is solved when it comes to marriage issues.
Love is not a prerequisite for marriage, nor does the fact that two people love each other give them a right to be married. 55% of marriages in the world are arranged by family, not by dating and “romance”, though most involve the consent of the couple of course. They have a right to marry, not because they’re in love, but because they are a male and female of marriageable age, not closely related, and with no one objecting to their union, they wish to marry. Again, love is not the qualifier for marriage, since age and consanguinity can disqualify lovers from marrying.
Marriage has a purpose,an end or aim, not just legal or tax benefits. The purpose of marriage is a union of at least two sexually dimorphic people to establish a household including an inheritance and a progeny, so as to perpetuate one’s genetic lineage, ancestry and family name. Normally children are generated by this sexual union, but adoption can also be elected as it is advantageous for children to be raised by opposite sex parents. Again, marriage is a sexual union, fundamentally, a union of the sexual organs is thus understood to occur as part of this relationship, and indeed is part of the basis and need for the contract of marriage in that pregnant women and children are generally more vulnerable than males, so marriage serves to protect the vulnerable.
In that a union of sexual organs is part and parcel of marriage, this disqualifies homosexual marriages, since neither gays nor lesbians can unite their organs, they normally involve themselves in frottage, sodomy or oral copulation, not coitus, thus they cannot perform the act of marriage, so they cannot be married in the truest sense. They can form legal unions and be acknowledged as having all the legal and financial benefits and obligations as married couples. We can call their union “gay-riage”. Whatever the outcome, it needs to be understood that it’s immoral to force religious objectors to violate their religion whether its to provide abortions for their workers or to sanction unions that they feel are unlawful.
@TiredSoVeryTired - DOMA is interesting since in banning inter-state recognition of same-sex marriage, it actually infringes on states rights. This seems to bother Justice Kennedy (the swing justice) more than straight-up consideration of same-sex marriage rights.
@Celestial_Teapot - Yes, I’m guessing the bottom line will be states rights. Like abortion is about privacy.
@LKJSlain - I have been in a box in my mind to stuck to open it.
@sbhasty - Miss you.:)
@vexations - I am familiar with the blood tests and the reasons for them. This is also why I support reforming our tax system. I’m in favor of a flat tax percentage rate for all. No special deductions for being married, etc. Just a low, flat rate. It closes loopholes for capital gains and whatnot. I could go more into my views on this but that is another topic for another day.
As for issues with inheriting and the like, that is why we go and get wills done. This boils down to personal responsibility and keeping your affairs in order. If you want to make certain that your things won’t get sold in an estate auction put on by the city, get a will done so you can pass things on to your family.
When it comes to what happens to children during a couple divorcing, there are family courts to help handle such things. Plenty of couples who are not married but have children go through such proceedings. I don’t see why it would be a problem if we got rid of marriage licenses because we still have family courts to deal with these sorts of issues if it comes to that.
@Celestial_Teapot - See my response above to vexations.
Wow, all this about blood test and waiting periods! @firetyger -
@LKJSlain - AWWW. thank you!!
been rough month.
@Celestial_Teapot -
England was actually taking over the role of marriage recognition and recordkeeping from the church.
That’s a disingenuous answer. Didn’t the English Reformation have something to do with that? (As in replacing the pope/Catholic church organization with the king/state one)? The fact that Merrie Olde England executed people for sodomy and heresy, two crimes with obvious religious intent, illustrates that the state was de facto enforcing religion, that there was no separation of church and state, which was my point.
-netnguy
@Celestial_Teapot -
I’d like there to be world peace. Idyllic daydreaming, however nice, shouldn’t prevent us from dealing the real world as it is.
Civil Unions are ‘idyllic daydreaming’? They already exist in several states.
And they apply for different-gender partners as well as same-gender ones. Replacing state-recognized marriage with civil-unions-for-all would be simply getting the government out of the marriage definition business.
You’re saying that all non-religious couples
should be demoted as second-class citizens while those affiliated
religion should retain first-class status. This would be discrimination
on basis of religion.
First, religions would be able to say by their own dogma what is a marriage and what isn’t, and could hold marriage ceremonies for any as they see fit. My not being able to be recognized as “married” by a Southern Baptist or Mormon church isn’t any violation of my civil rights any more than these churches not having to recognize any baptism I might have undergone. It would not matter as marriage would become a purely religious ceremony with no legal standing. What would count insofar as law (and via proxy, employment and all civil rights) would be the civil union law.
Moreover, that’s not “second-class citizenship” as I say the same status should apply to *everyone*. There would be no state-ordained or state-sanctioned marriages, insofar as the law was concerned, just civil unions. It’s real equality.
Secondly–if you insist on someone’s ability to have a religiously-sanctioned marriage, I very much doubt that anyone would lack for finding a church to perform the rite. Heck, there’d be some willing to marry ELP’s quip of “seven virgins and a mule”
-netnguy
@sbhasty - I’m here to talk if you need me, baby. *big hugs*
I love you!
I’m marrying my sister next week.
Absolutely NOT.
Only if they force churches to perform marriages for gay couples…..other than that….I don’t really give a crap if they are together. Though….I am just a little disappointed….because hell….I wanted this to happen:
http://youtu.be/X-YCdcnf_P8
Sure, it was a joke….but….damn….a girl can dream.
@LKJSlain - Thank you. made me smile so big. I love you too.
Wouldn’t this fall smack under the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Obviously they are unHappy being denied the Liberty to marry whom they choose. How can the issue even be in doubt?
Constitunional is good but I think is bad for divine principles !!
go to college
no. i hate that this is even an issue.
If there’s nothing against it in the constitution, then I think you have your answer.