Well we had to get to this topic eventually didn't we.
Should same sex marrige be legalized?
Should it be recognized but not given the title "marrige".
Or should it be disallowed alltogether?
Or should it remain indivdual state's decisions?
Printable View
Well we had to get to this topic eventually didn't we.
Should same sex marrige be legalized?
Should it be recognized but not given the title "marrige".
Or should it be disallowed alltogether?
Or should it remain indivdual state's decisions?
My own views should be obvious to my friends. I support same sax marrige accross the board.
I see no reason, why 2 Consenting adults of the Same Sex can't marry, once you are an adult what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own busnies, this Nation right now has too many far more important issues to deal with then whether same sex couples can marry
If a same sex couple wants to marry, it has no effect on my life so why not let them
As Our Own Consistution even says:
The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
It does not say all women, all men ect it says ALL Men which could be interpreted as all PEOPLE be they Male, Female ect are equal, thus meaning Gays have the same rights as anyone lese
If Gays, Lesbians, Transgender wish to marry each other, let them, what difference does it make
I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be with the person they love; legally or otherwise.
I agree 100%, this is the Land Of Thee Free
I don't see marriage as a civil right for sure as it is actually a legal right. Civil right insinuates that if i was denied marriage by an individual I could sue them for violation of my civil rights. Every girl who ever said no would be in court.
I believe that marriage is rite. It's a personal and sometimes religious ceremony in which people express their love and commitment for one another. Everyone has the ability to have that. This idea in the GLBT community that the government is saying you can't get married is BS. I can marry a girl right now if i wanted to. We can rent out some nice venue and have a big white wedding it's a rite after all.
What I don't believe in is this legal marriage idea. I don't believe in it for straight couples, I don't believe in it for gay people. I don't understand the logic of "baby I love you, lets invite the government into our house". I get very frustrated with the GLBT community when they recognize this AS fact. That marriage *is* a form of government repression and then go on to vote for it.
No! We need a total re-vamp of this law. Marriage is incredibly archaic (legally) and easily circumvented. The rights that are being fought over in the GLBT community are things that a well written living will can take over.
So this pole, unfortunately does not have my answer. "Marriage is an archaic form of government repression and should be removed from table for everyone. The government is not needed to enforce rites."
You don't have to call it marriage, since that seems to push some serious buttons for the religious right, especially. But same sex couples should be allowed all the legal rights and priveleges of mixed sex couples, regardless of what you call it.
One can interpret any way one wants, but Jefferson literally meant all men. Women were not considered politically relevant at the time, and were certainly not considered to be the equal of men in any view.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I have to disagree with at least some of this. True, the government does not enforce rites, and in fact, you can be married simply by signing a license, without undergoing any ritualistic ceremony whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by voxelectronica
But in order to establish legal boundaries, so that one spouse (partner) can make important decisions for the other spouse during times of emergency, and also to provide legitimate means of inheritence, some form of recognition of the union is required. I suppose that some of this can be accomplished through some form of legal documentation, but until the federal government recognizes such partnerships as valid for tax purposes, for example, the idea of marriage or life-partnership or whatever you like to call it, is required.
Thorn not only are you correct but to go a bit further. "Men" was also meant as citizen, as at the time of the constitution there were PLENTY of groups of people living in this country that were not considered relevant. Multiple races in this country were viewed as live stock. If you didn't come from the right parts of Europe you were not human in this country for a very, very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Everyone has the right to adopt or have children...why not marry? i know more gay couples that have been happily together longer than i do "staight" couples. They have my support!
I don't believe there should be any tax benefit for marriage at all. I don't see the point in it. I do understand that in American history there was a time and a place for it, to encourage people to procreate and settle this country. We don't need that anymore and have come complacent in the idea that the government should give us something for doing something we would do anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
That's why my idea is that *all* legal marriage should be annulled legally. Tax breaks should changed completely and issues of inheritance, burial rights, medical decisions etc. should all be be handled with our current legal system of living wills, power of attorney etc. Those documents should be held up without contest. This would actually benefit the GLBT community!
Yes I believe gays and straights should have equal rights... the right to nothing.
I agree absolutely. If you want to go and put on a fancy white dress or suit and walk down the aisle of a church with your girlfriend/boyfriend/goldfish/kids or indeed alone and recite some vows in front of a priest, that's between you and that church: it's a religious matter, hence nothing to do with the government. Equally, it should have no meaning to the government: no tax breaks or any other special treatment based on whether you have or have not carried out some religious ritual. We should all be treated and taxed as individuals by the government, without discriminating on anything - including marital status.Quote:
Originally Posted by voxelectronica
js207 and THAT is why I get so frustrated with the GLBT community at large. You can get them to that point, they will agree completely and then when you say "OK so lets work on getting rid of this whole marriage thing all together, I even have some conservatives who agree and Libertarians are all about this lets go!" but then it's like "wait but no I want want their having. I want to be accepted by society and a legal marriage is the ONLY way that's going to happen... blah blah blah".
Box: think outside of it.
Vox: Absolutely. Between that and the fact they pushed this issue too hard too soon, when even in CA it didn't have enough popular support to be accepted, they are perhaps their own worst enemies. Of course pushing that hard against public opinion backfired on them, hard - where if they had just waited a few more years, built up a little bit more sympathy, they could have achieved their goal properly. Now, these antics mean they'll have to get a supermajority behind them to overturn the barriers they just erected!
Marriage was originally a religious concept and should remain so.
The government got involved because as populations grew and changed the old way of tracking births, deaths and marriages at the local parish became tedious and inaccurate -- government took over the job so that it could be centralized (and to take over the revenue). Government's legitimate role in "marriage" has solely to do with property rights and child custody disputes. It is solely an enforcer of the contract.
Therefore, government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. Unions, between whatever combination of individuals, should be recorded with the government as a contract -- essentially a required prenup. The government should care what gender those individuals are or how many of them there are -- it should simply record the contract and enforce it if/when the relationship ends.
Marriage is between those individuals and their church -- if their church recognizes the union as a "marriage" under it's rules, then it is so.
As long as the Couple is Happy, call it a Marriage, a Union, whever people want to call it, the most important thing is that they are happy together, if so it makes no difference what it is called
JS... don't get me started!
I noticed a lot of straight support for the GLBT marriage cause but more and more I'm noticing gays and lesbians (specifically) getting away from it. A lot of them with the understanding that this country has more issues than marriage and understand that attempting to hijack the will of the people with the court system is no way to gain acceptance in this country. Some of them even understand that marriage isn't going to give them acceptance either.
As long as Government is involved with marriage, Religion is the only reason to not allow it and should have no say. Fine you don't want to allow Adam and Steve to have a ceremony in your church, that is your right. The Government has to allow them to sign a paper saying that they are legally a corporation of 2 individuals. This to me is no different than when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry.
If the Government really does not want to allow marriage for one group then no one should be married in the secular sense and everyone should have a civil union with the exact same rights.
Diablo... actually, what you are talking about is marriage as a civil right, it is not. It's a legal right which the government can restrict.
Remember though this is not just about what the government wants. Gay marriage has been voted down by states. This legal issue has been brought up to several states who have voted against it. This government is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The people of these states have spoken.
Regardless of how the people voted it is the governments job to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. If it is granted to one group it needs to be granted to all. So as I said as long as government is involved it is a right and should be granted. Governement has no reason to restrict this group and not that group.
Government can and has restricted the rights of blacks, how is this any different? The scale is not the same but the act is no different.
It is a civil rights issue, there's an equal protection argument to be made. Further, there's an unenumerated rights argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by voxelectronica
As for "the people", it simply shows the tyranny of the majority; something our government was specifically designed to guard against. "The people" might speak, but they don't get to restrict the rights of others no matter how loudly they do so.
This is not a Civil rights issue. Civil rights pertain to protecting the application of the constitution. Marriage is not part of the constitution.
I roll my eye when i hear gay people say "we can't get married". That simply isn't true. I can marry whoever i want. I can marry this lovely girl I'm chatting up right now if i wanted to. The government is not my father. It can not tell me what i can and can not do. If i marry a girl right now the ceremony will be the same and the government will not stop me.
As a constitutional representative democracy we are here to uphold the ideas of the people of this country. The constitution was there to protect the rights of the minorities and it does not mention marriage accepts when modified by the will of the people. Let's not forget though that the constitution was written to protect men from the right parts of Europe. At the time it was written a lot of other type of people were considered livestock not humans.
So this idea that our founding fathers thought "hey one day Africans, Irish, Native Americans, Chinese etc will all live here in harmony" is just not true. Most people weren't allowed to immigrate into this country because they were "dirty". We held those British idea of superiority in our original documents. The beauty of how the our government system works is that it IS the will of the people who can change those ideas.
Here you argue the letter of the law and not the intent, yes originaly America was founded on the right of white men to not be shakled by a government or a particular brand of christianity but America has evolved somewhat. The rights of the one must be the rights of the many.
The rights that I have with my wife as a married couple must be given to gays that wish to enter into that legal status. Not allowing them to is unconstitutional.
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
well I'm sorry but the letter of the law states that this is NOT a civil rights issue. The argument that it's unconstitutional has been made and it's failed. So it's not like I'm the only person out there saying that. Actually there are a lot of African American groups out there insulted that this is likened to actual Civil rights struggles.
Ohhhh the 14th amendment. Did you know that the sitting president VETOED that amendment stating that it was unconstitutional and that the majority of states voted against it?
At any rate the Equal protection act is there not to guarantee any sort of equality but equal application as applied to civil rights. See before the 14th states could pick and choose who was protected by the Constitution. The 14th makes it so they can not do this this. This goes back to civil rights issue which per the letter of the law gay marriage is NOT.
There was no intent to make marriage a constitutional issue all 200 plus years ago. There was no intent to protect peoples "rights" of marriage. Not even a little bit. In fact the original constitution was designed to keep the government OUT of people's lives not interject it in their relationships.
For people who truly believe in freedom the only way to go is abolish marriage make it a complete non government issue and keep it an issue between private citizens and contracts between only them. Asking the government into your bedroom is a wide spread travesty that has NOT been equally applied since it's conception.
But that is exactly what they are doing. They are saying this certain group can not receive the the same rights that another one does. The laws are not being applied evenly based on sexual orientation.
And why exactly?
Because of religion which is supposedly separate. I have yet to hear any reasonable rationale to not allow them to. The because god said so makes more sense then the others.
Oh joy the 14th amendment BS, yes it was unusual in its ratification but the previous 7 years in US history were a bit unusual as well. The whole thing for those that do not know was the Southern states that were the confederacy were forced to ratify it to be allowed back into the Union, even though the Union stand was that they couldn't have left in the first place. 3, IIRC, states had officials that when this became public knowledge attempted to rescind their ratification. The Union then basically just counted all the votes for it including the forced ones and ignored the later against votes.
I agree on your last point fully, the easiest cleanest way to do it would be to make all marriages civil unions, allow gays to have them enjoying the same exact rights and leaving marriage to church.
First of all not everyones marrige is tied to a religious faith.
It is one of the reasons civil unions (state santctioned marriges developed, in addition to other legality issues.
Under the Comity Clause of the Constitution, the public acts of one state must be recognized by other states and this principle has long been established in U.S. law.
Article 4 - Section 1 -of the U.S. Constitution declares:
Each State to Honor all Others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
It played a majior role in finally bringing about the acceptance of inter-racial civil unions in the past despite the opposition of the majiority.
Why not the provide the same acceptance for same sex civil unions as well?
The answer is found in two little words.
Fear and bigotry.
I disagree with this argument of fear and bigotry. I would never vote to change the constitution to widen the definition of an institution that as far as I'm concerned is completely over stepping the boundaries of government into the private lives of the citizens of this country. I know *a lot* of conservatives who vote the same way for the same reason. It's because real freedom means little laws and no government.
the 14th is totally BS. I don't even understand why you would bring it up. It's a civil rights amendment that allowed a lot of the civil rights movement to go through. Not that I'm against the Civil Rights movement by any stretch of the situation I just don't want things that important to be based off a lie.
Also let's not forget that the separation of church and state does not pertain to how the public votes. The public CAN vote on their morals that's actually how we get legal rights. Marriage is a legal right and legal rights are based off of things like the mass morals of the public. That's how we get most laws like prostitution.
I don't agree with prostitution laws. I don't agree with most laws but they are the laws as voted on by the people and I live in a Constitution representative democracy so that's life. I can't screw hookers. (unless i go to Nevada).
Of course like any good Anarchist I'm not above breaking the law.
But it is the job of the government to protect the minority from the votes of the majority. Lets vote and say people with blue eyes can't marry and say that somehow it passes it is then the governments job through the courts to say this is ridiculous. But you seem indicate through your posts that oh well the people voted. The American Constitution was based on the idea that the dirty masses were not quite smart enough to be really in charge of decision making.
Those laws are based on morality as had been handed down by religion, which incorporated a set of rules that helped society stay together in a supernatural form of government. We are beyond this and a lot those are good and need to be controlled by law. But 2 people regardless of gender to form a union with legal rights is not one of them and the government other than recognizing that a union has occurred between 2, or if you want more should have no say.
Example the Courts to balance the power of Congress and the President, to decide what these same people do with their votes as it impedes others and to make official interpretations. Another would be the Electoral College, you can can vote for the group of people who will actually vote, not for them directly in case they make some serious blunder.
No it isn't. That's the job of the Constitution, marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablo
No the constitution was there to make certain rights unalienable. Marriage wasn't one of those rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablo
This is the problem I have with gay marriage proponents. You agree that the government should not be involved then argue the case that they should. You agreed that the government has no place in marriage and are then go to argue that it's the governments job to protect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablo
Well it isn't. The government is not there to protect anyone. There was a time when the police were privatized.