Homosexual Marriages

[GuidoHunter]

Sorry to be trite with a discussion topic, but I feel this could spark some nice debate which I've never had (on this subject).

From having heard much in the way of side comments regarding the amendment proposal, I feel some people may be taking a stand on the wrong issue. I hear people saying things like "I can't believe Bush wants to make gay marriages illegal", or "Marriage is about love", etc. To be completely honest, Tristia's sig is one thing that compelled me to write this. I may be taking what it says a bit out of context, but it nonetheless sparked my interest.

The idea of gay people getting married isn't up for political debate at the moment. So long as gay people can find a church that will marry them under the eyes of God, they can, and the government has absolutely no power to do anything about that. I, along with the majority of the nation, don't have a problem with people doing that. However, the debate comes up regarding the state recognition of marital status (i.e. the issuance of marriage certificates).

I am personally against the legal recognition of gay marriages. I have many gay friends, and I understand that whether or not they get married their relationship would not change as a result of having another piece of paper and being able to call the other a spouse.

The real problem is: "Where do we stop?" If two men or women want to marry each other because "they love each other", what about the grown man and his twelve-year-old girl/boyfriend who love each other, too. After all, according to Tristia's sig, marriage isn't about age. Why not add "species" to the list of things about which marriage isn't? Hell, I love my dog (not in that way, but for the sake of argument, consider the psychos out there who do), are you gonna dismiss my love for her and not let us marry?

The idea of a constitutional amendment is to prevent these situations from arising. I really don't want to have the supreme law of our land deal with something like gay marriages, but I feel it might have to. There're always gonna be people out there who'll get good lawyers out there to support their cause, but with an amendment, nobody could challenge because you can't argue with the constitution. NOBODY can.

Some of my friends have said that the above absurd situations could be controlled by taking things on a case-by-case basis. However, don't people feel that laws against gay marriages are discriminatory against gays? If so, wouldn't allowing gays to get married and not child- or dog-lovers be discriminatory to the latter groups? Those people exist in the world, however small their numbers, and if they get a good lawyer to appeal to the right liberal judge, they'd be able to skirt around the law. The only thing that could prevent that: a constitutional amendment.

The implications of people being able to marry whomever they want would wreak havoc on all sorts of legal...stuff... The first thing that comes to mind is the tax code and writing off spouses as dependants. My father's an accountant and agrees that the number of tax loopholes (which is already big) would be much greater. If saving a bunch of money each year means marrying your pet, I'm sure a lot of people would do it. I feel bad for only providing one example, but I'm sure many other legal implications exist.

So, I guess my point was to clarify the real political debate at hand and to give my stance on it. I hope we can have some insightful discussions =).

After preview edit: I was unaware that FFR "bleeped" out "g-a-y". I hope everyone can just understand that that's what "#$*" represents.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/