Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

[Laharl]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

I say let em' get married....why should we stop em'? If they wanna get married let them for gods sake!

I do believe that is the essence of the argument, m'dear. 'Twouldn't be for His sake.

I agree with EB on this one. I think it's my duty as an American citizen that, should I ever get the chance to vote on the issue, vote in favor of gay marriage. As a country, we shouldn't dictate moral ground. Do I condone same-sex marriage? No. But my opinions, while based on more than just a religious level, really don't go against the ideals of the Constitution as some of the extreme right-wingers would have you believe.

BUT

I will say that if they do allow gay marriages then they better re-allow plural marriages. It's legal for a guy to have 5 mistresses and have children with each of them, but it's illegal for him to be married to all 5. Explain that logic to me, please, because it goes over my head.

One final thing, just to clarify a point EB brought up: Separation of church and state does NOT mean what everyone seems to think it does. It does not mean "cannot legislate according to morality of the masses" but it means that a religion cannot sport a political platform. In other words, Gordon B. Hinckley, president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, can not run for office.

[Specforces]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

This was my original thought.

What sparked this thread?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Give me a court case guys, I need to see where this was ruled...

[User6773]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

There was nothing illegal about gay marriage in the first place.

Gay people have, and always have had, the right to marry, just like straight people.

The issue is that gay people aren't happy with the current definition of marriage, as it doesn't allow them to marry the people they want to marry, so they want to change it.

There's no civil rights violation going on here - and no one is a second class citizen - just because there is no social structure in place designed to legally recognize homosexual unions. Gay people and straight people have the same rights to marriage, and choosing to waive that right does not give one the power to invent a new right to take its place.

[MalReynolds]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

So, let's flip it. Let's say only people of the same sex are allowed to marry. That would make me feel like a second class citizen, knowing that because I don't share the same appetities as some that I would no longer recieve tax breaks, I would be forced to testify against my life partner, and my union with whichever woman I want would not be acknowledged by society.

That seems pretty second class to me.

And VA just voted a ban on same sex marriage in, which uses the phrase, "Unconstitutional," in it.

[Squeek]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

That ban was retarded. Blame the southern half of our state for that crap.

[evilbutterfly]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

Separation of church and state does NOT mean what everyone seems to think it does. It does not mean "cannot legislate according to morality of the masses" but it means that a religion cannot sport a political platform. In other words, Gordon B. Hinckley, president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, can not run for office.

That's definitely not the only implication of the phrase. Inconsistent precidence and unclear wording makes separation of church and state a little bit confusing, though. Courts and laws have gone both ways, supporting it sometimes (as most people see it) and going against it other times. I think it applies in this case, though, since the arguement is mainly religious in nature. They can't make a law that says we all have to get married in the traditional Catholic way (or any specific marriage ceremony) because it'd support one religion and limit the practice of others.

Gay people have, and always have had, the right to marry, just like straight people.

The issue is that gay people aren't happy with the current definition of marriage, as it doesn't allow them to marry the people they want to marry, so they want to change it.

That's the worst arguement against gay marriage I've ever seen. You could use that crap ass arguement in basically any case. Oh yeah, just because there's no legal definition for black people being more than 3/5 of a person they shouldn't get rights. Yeah guys let's completely ignore them. yay!

[Shashakiro]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

but it means that a religion cannot sport a political platform.

The "State" part of "Separation of Church and State" doesn't just refer to politics/running for office, but laws as well.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

One final thing, just to clarify a point EB brought up: Separation of church and state does NOT mean what everyone seems to think it does. It does not mean "cannot legislate according to morality of the masses" but it means that a religion cannot sport a political platform. In other words, Gordon B. Hinckley, president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, can not run for office.

I'm pretty sure that this is incredibly wrong.

Separation of Church and State doesn't prevent someone from ever running for office, or prevent a religion from having political weight.

There are two sections of Separation: establishment and free exercise. The former says, "the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion."

So, the government can't say "we're a Christian country."

The other says that the state cannot prevent someone from exercising his religion.

Nothing about running for office.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Ever_Mullen]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

I do believe that is the essence of the argument, m'dear. 'Twouldn't be for His sake.

I agree with EB on this one. I think it's my duty as an American citizen that, should I ever get the chance to vote on the issue, vote in favor of gay marriage. As a country, we shouldn't dictate moral ground. Do I condone same-sex marriage? No. But my opinions, while based on more than just a religious level, really don't go against the ideals of the Constitution as some of the extreme right-wingers would have you believe.

BUT

I will say that if they do allow gay marriages then they better re-allow plural marriages. It's legal for a guy to have 5 mistresses and have children with each of them, but it's illegal for him to be married to all 5. Explain that logic to me, please, because it goes over my head.

One final thing, just to clarify a point EB brought up: Separation of church and state does NOT mean what everyone seems to think it does. It does not mean "cannot legislate according to morality of the masses" but it means that a religion cannot sport a political platform. In other words, Gordon B. Hinckley, president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, can not run for office.

While this is a very good opinion....and I might add you just don't come on here and shout all day long like many people do. I appreciate that.
I agree with what you are saying for the most part but the thing here isn't simply seperation between church and state...if christians are in office that ok. But if they allow there relgiousness biast to interfear there is a problem. Most people also like to use religion to get into office and may not follow a single word they said. Morally speaking? Gays should get married cause it's there choice not ours. Maybe we should let a guy marry 5 people. Why not? It's his choice. People are going to do what they are going to do no matter what anyone says. I agree with moral issues and such as that but the point is: Getting married should be about the union of two people in love...isn't that what it's all about anyways?

[ImEric12]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

The thing that gets me about the whole debate is one of the founding principles of the US that never actually got carried out:

Separation of Church and State!

The only real arguement against same-sex marriage is that it breaks the moral/religious values of marriage. As far as our government is concerned, marriage should only be seen as a legal status, a (somewhat) binding contract between two people, and nothing more. It has no (again, as far as the government should be concerned) moral or religious implications. If the government cared about religious concerns, then hell, we might as well make divorce illegal, since that messes up the sanctity of marriage! Honestly, they should just change the definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people" and let the various churches and religious organizations decide for themselves whether or not they'll recognize the marriages (same way some people will refuse to accept that somebody is divorced, since there's no such thing by their beliefs).

Then again, we still swear on the Bible in court and are one nation under God, so I don't think the separation arguement will do much.

The main thing that you (and Laharl) seem to miss is that marriage is not only a declaration of love. (Now, before I continue, I feel it necessary to state that I am fully for gay marriage. I see nothing wrong with it.)

The other thing marriage implies is an economic status. As someone mentioned, tax breaks are involved. Family health care. Things like this. Many people are against gay marriage simply for the fact that a gay couple cannot have a child of their own, so the economic status is marred slightly. In my opinion, this argument is completely debunked by the amount of children who are in need of adoption. I truly believe more people should adopt far before thinking of having their own children... there are so many children out there with no parents, it's quite horrible.

Now, this economic status ESPECIALLY applies to the plural marriages Laharl brought up. Many corporations have healthcare policies that include not only the worker, but his/her spouse and children. If plural marriage were allowed, you could marry six people, and the corporation would be responsible for providing healthcare to all of them. It... would be a mess. There would be no fair way to come out of that situation. That's the main reason plural marriage isn't allowed, as far as I can tell.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

Well, consider this: same-sex partners aren't allowed into the ICU of hospitals even if their loved one is sick and dying because they aren't immediate family.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

Many people are against gay marriage simply for the fact that a gay couple cannot have a child of their own, so the economic status is marred slightly.

Because obviously, if a homosexual can't marry someone of the same sex for this reason, that person is going to go out and marry a person of the opposite sex and have children with that person. Also, marriage always involves having kids, and it's completely okay for a straight couple to marry and not have kids but not for a gay couple to marry and not have kids.

Perfect reason to be against gay marriage.

[FoJaR]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

i dont know what you're talking about.

gay people have the same opportunity to get married to people of the opposite sex as straight people do.

[ImEric12]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

Because obviously, if a homosexual can't marry someone of the same sex for this reason, that person is going to go out and marry a person of the opposite sex and have children with that person. Also, marriage always involves having kids, and it's completely okay for a straight couple to marry and not have kids but not for a gay couple to marry and not have kids.

Perfect reason to be against gay marriage.

I didn't say many people back up their opinions with VALID reasoning.

Heh.

[FoJaR]

Re: Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

The thing that gets me about the whole debate is one of the founding principles of the US that never actually got carried out:

Separation of Church and State!

The only real arguement against same-sex marriage is that it breaks the moral/religious values of marriage. As far as our government is concerned, marriage should only be seen as a legal status, a (somewhat) binding contract between two people, and nothing more. It has no (again, as far as the government should be concerned) moral or religious implications. If the government cared about religious concerns, then hell, we might as well make divorce illegal, since that messes up the sanctity of marriage! Honestly, they should just change the definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people" and let the various churches and religious organizations decide for themselves whether or not they'll recognize the marriages (same way some people will refuse to accept that somebody is divorced, since there's no such thing by their beliefs).

Then again, we still swear on the Bible in court and are one nation under God, so I don't think the separation arguement will do much.

seperation of church and state means that there shouldnt be one state mandated religion, not that morals shouldnt come into play when considering legislation.