Marrige, same sex only?

[shayna{L_D}]

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be with the person they love; legally or otherwise.

amen sista!

[js207]

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to be with the person they love; legally or otherwise.

Fair enough - but also a red herring: this isn't about "being with" anyone, it's about getting government endorsement of and special treatment because of a relationship. I don't believe couples should be entitled to different tax status because of their relationship, whatever the genders involved.

[TwistedTails]

Stripped of all the politics it comes down to five points to consider.


1. The Governments and laws of the United States of America are by demand of the people blind to the race, sex, or age of a citizen or group of citizens hereafter called the people.

2. By demand of the people all of the Governments of the United States of America maintain a separation of church and state. therefore the all encompassing term Marriage, needs to be separated into its two components. For clarity the term Marriage will be used to define the religious aspect of marriage and Civil Union to define the governments.

3. The religious institution of Marriage. Each religion is free to define Marriage and its eligibility as it sees fit. The peoples demand for separation of church and state prohibits the government from regulating church practices.

4. The governments institution of Civil Union must by the peoples demands for a racial and gender blind government constitute a union between two citizens. Defining a person first as a citizen for regulatory purposes requires that the aspects of race and gender be ignored as all citizens are equal entities under the law. Requiring that members of a civil union be of any particular gender violates the peoples demand that the governments of the United States of America be blind to gender in law.

5. A States Constitution must not be amended in any fashion that restricts the rights of a citizen based upon their Age, Race, or Gender. To do so violates the demand of the people to equal treatment under the law.

(reprinted from an earlier article I posted elsewhere)

My opinion is mine, if you are going to flame me for it please be intelligent and literate. Or at least turn up the heat. I have marshmallows waiting.

[js207]

...
1. The Governments and laws of the United States of America are by demand of the people blind to the race, sex, or age of a citizen or group of citizens hereafter called the people.

That would be nice, although it is not yet the status quo. One day, perhaps the government will actually be required to be race and gender blind, but not yet. As for age-blind, that has some interesting side effects for liquor and driving laws, not to mention Medicare and Social Security...

2. By demand of the people all of the Governments of the United States of America maintain a separation of church and state. therefore the all encompassing term Marriage, needs to be separated into its two components. For clarity the term Marriage will be used to define the religious aspect of marriage and Civil Union to define the governments.

There, we can agree: the government has no business getting involved in "marriage". I'm not convinced the existence of "civil union" is necessary or even desirable, though. If we agree it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of age, gender and race, how is it acceptable to discriminate on marital status?

4. The governments institution of Civil Union must by the peoples demands for a racial and gender blind government constitute a union between two citizens.

Fortunately, marriage is not restricted to citizens: I know plenty of people who would be rather upset by that new discrimination!

On a more serious note, do you believe civil unions should be restricted by age, relationship between people, number of people...? Should, say, Frasier Crane and his father get these benefits, since they cohabit and would probably benefit financially? What about the three member "couple" I know in England - should the three of them get this status?

[Diablo]

No it isn't. That's the job of the Constitution, marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.

No the constitution was there to make certain rights unalienable. Marriage wasn't one of those rights.

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.

Well it isn't. The government is not there to protect anyone. There was a time when the police were privatized.

So the Magical Piece of parchment flies around protecting people? No the Government with in the framework of the Constitution does.

Now we have the Unalienable Rights of the Decleration of Independence in the Constitution. The Constitution was formed to define the government and its powers. The Bill of rights including freedom of religion, which is the reason against gay marriage and this ridiculous semantics argument, were added.

I never said they should be involved with religious marriage but civil union that grants x rights and marriage that grants the same rights is the same thing in a legal sense and legality is the realm of Government.

I give up trying to use any sort of reason with you have fun in your anarchy.

[TwistedTails]

That would be nice, although it is not yet the status quo. One day, perhaps the government will actually be required to be race and gender blind, but not yet. As for age-blind, that has some interesting side effects for liquor and driving laws, not to mention Medicare and Social Security...

I should have kept the original title for this piece and prefaced it to set a perspective. the original title was "On the subject of gay marriage and constitutional amendment" and it was written in response to an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution. In that context I feel that citizens of the "age of majority" would have been presumed by the reader. I sadly must agree with you that my first point is not the "status quo". But I speak to the ideals of the document. The Constitution already provides for the ideal of equality, It is "We the People" that fall short in making it the truth.

There, we can agree: the government has no business getting involved in "marriage". I'm not convinced the existence of "civil union" is necessary or even desirable, though. If we agree it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of age, gender and race, how is it acceptable to discriminate on marital status?

Indeed we do agree that the government has no business being involved in "marriage" by my definition of it. The civil union does however exist, regardless of it being an undesirable state of affairs in its current form. That is why it must be changed if not abolished.

Fortunately, marriage is not restricted to citizens: I know plenty of people who would be rather upset by that new discrimination!

Indeed they would, for many it would close off the path to citizenship that is offered through the civil union, and for even that one reason, though there are many more, the concept of civil union must be corrected rather than abolished.

On a more serious note, do you believe civil unions should be restricted by age, relationship between people, number of people...? Should, say, Frasier Crane and his father get these benefits, since they cohabit and would probably benefit financially? What about the three member "couple" I know in England - should the three of them get this status?

No, I do not believe that civil unions should be restricted in any way. If (using your example) Frasier Crane and his father decided to enter a civil union, merge their assets and give each other specific legal rights in regards to those assets. Yes they should be able to form a union. As for your three member couple in England. In the context of this post, No. Only because the U.S. government has no authority over citizens of England. If that trio were U.S. citizens then yes they should be able to form a union. I would also add that the union be able to be amended at a later date to include additional partners should the original parties choose to do so.

Again this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[Ragoczy]

No the constitution was there to make certain rights unalienable. Marriage wasn't one of those rights.

Incorrect. The enumerated rights do not deny the existence of other rights held by the People. The Constitution's purpose is to enumerate the powers of government -- any right or power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution is held by the People and the States.

I draw your attention to Amendments 9 & 10, respectively:

Amendment Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment Ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Marriage doesn't have to be an enumerated right in order for it to be a right held by the people.

[mkemse]

It seems to me as many Politicians have said there are far to many important issues pending now then to Ammend either the US Contitution or States version over same sex marriage, if same sex couple want to marry let them, cal it a union, a marriage what ever you want just let them marry and let them be

[Muskan]

I do not care about same-sex marriage.

It is Individual matter, and government has nothing to do with it.

Overall I denounce any sort of legalization of marriage, it is useless.

What can be legitimate and proper and sacrosanct is the "Contract" base of a mutually beneficial relation.

The member of couple (same sex or opposite sex) can make a proper reasonable, mutually beneficial and flexible deal before going in a/any relation. The breach of that "Contract" will amount to be a punishable fault.

There's no use or necessity for the so-called legitimacy or illlegitimacy of a relation, a "Contract: made on mutual consent between two independent people is however legitimately deserving protection and respect from each of them and all of the society too.

I denounce the system of marriage! And I assert the importance of the "contract" between two free adult citizens(same sex or opposite sex) on their own accord. Government or social law bodies has nothing to say or do about it. On the other hand, it is duty of the government and law bodies to save the importance and the individual interests of the couple based on that mutually beneficial "Contract".

[voxelectronica]

First and for most I would like to say that no matter what you (the collective you) and I discuss back and forth about the constitution, the law, the history of this country or what form of government we do or don't have it will not change the fact that people who get paid to do this have gone back and forth and as of yet there hasn't been a valid legal argument.

I'm not going to say these people are smarter than us or better educated because I just don't believe that. They do however more time than I to go back and forth.

Fair enough - but also a red herring: this isn't about "being with" anyone, it's about getting government endorsement of and special treatment because of a relationship. I don't believe couples should be entitled to different tax status because of their relationship, whatever the genders involved.

This particular statement is the one that I find the most correct.

I don't understand how people can agree with this in any form and then attempt to make an argument *for* marriage.

[Thorne]

I believe the basic problem with this whole idea is the fact that the large majority of people equate the term "marriage" with sexual intercourse. So let's, for the sake of argument, relegate the term "marriage" to the religious dust bin, and redefine the joining of two or more people into a private financial and emotional relationship as a civil union. No ceremony required, no limitations on sex or numbers, no religious connotations at all. Basically, the same kind of thing which happens when corporations merge, a legal bonding of the group for mutually beneficial reasons.

Any heterosexual couple wanting to be married, whether in a religious environment or not, is required by law to get a license. This license makes their union a legal one, whether they go through the ceremony or not. As such, they are entitled to certain benefits, including health care and taxes, which the law permits such unions.

As voxelectronica has pointed out, the government has no business in our bedrooms. If the members of such a civil union enjoy sexual relations, it is their business, only. If they happen to be members of a religious community and that community opposes their actions, that community has the right to bar them from the community. They do not have the right to dissolve their union, except as a prerequisite for membership in said community.

Regardless of how you want to interpret the Constitution, US law permits such unions between a man and a woman. Denying this to a couple simply because they happen to have the same type of genitalia is absurd. This is a business decision, not a medical one. By the same token, if two men and a woman want to form a union, or two women and a man, or ten women and a man, or even ten men with one woman, the government should have no legal grounds to forbid such a union. (I can't seem to find, among religious groups which permit polygamy, any that allow one woman to have many husbands. It always seems to involve one man with many wives. Interesting. Another thread, perhaps.)

In a perfect world.

And to voxelectronica: it may be true that the Constitution does not specify marriage as a fundamental right. But neither does it "permit" the use of CD players, cell phones or disposable diapers. What's important is that the Constitution does not prohibit these things.

[thepast]

Ok, on this I think we can all agree: None of you are Constitutional scholars. I have dabbled in Constitutional Law here & there, but I can reassure you that NONE of you are reading the Constitution "correctly." Why? Because welcome to our biggest issue as a country: Our US Constitution is constantly being fought over by formalists v. functionalists: is it a document that should be confined to it's 4 borders & read most literally word by word, or is it a living document that should reflect us as a society & the changes we make over the course of time. This is an issue that Constitutional Law Scholars debate as issue after issue that wasn't "written into" the Constitution appears on the forefront of the political arena. It also is an argument that comes up even when it's regarding an issue that IS written into the Constitution--you would be surprised at how vague our little document truely is.

My point is this: Rather then argue about the Constitution, which, unless I am mistaken none of you are experts in, why not just keep to the topic & discuss the notion of Marriage.

Just FYI, marriage itself isn't written in as a fundamental right in the Constitution. However, it has been understood that over time, our judiciary (specifically the US Supreme Court) has interpreted some things to be "undersood" to be fundamental rights or liberty interests. These include the right to marry, the right to raise your children, etc. etc.

And a second FYI, the 14th Amendment is generally considered "the states" amendment--it takes the Constitution & makes it applicable to the states--it's a federalism issue.


Just my two cents since I have been reading the thread from the start.

[On a side note, I would also encourage folks to debate the ISSUES, not eachother... This is a good thread, let's not have it hijacked by personal opinions being interpreted as fact...]

[hopperboo]

Should same sex marrige be legalized? No.

Should it be recognized but not given the title "marrige." Some kind of union with the same kind of security marriages off should be offered, yes.

Or should it be disallowed alltogether? Termed "marriage?" Yes.

Or should it remain indivdual state's decisions? No.

[mkemse]

Seems to me that the United States FEderal Governent has to masny other importnt things to worry about and eal with then Same Sex Marriages, leave it as a States Rights, no a Federal issue, the WArs, The Economy ect are far more important to deal withthe if "Joe & John" or Linda & Sherry" get married, we a a nation spend more wasted time on issues the i have ever seen, I want Alernative Fuel Sources, Developd, I want the Ecpnomy Fixed, I want the Tropps Brought Home, I DO NOT want the Federal Goverment spening my Taxpayer money (at least right now) spening weeks debating if 2 people of the same same can "marry" just mot an important enough issure right now for my Taxpayer monet to be spend on
The Government has to Pritoritise what it has to get done, I am concnered that Gas may go back up to $2.50 a galon or more, that OIl could go up over $100 a barrel again, that I may have to decide to I pay for Food or do I buy my Mediction, Can I afford,
If 2 memberso f the samesex want to marry, if it make them happy let them marry, let them be, it has no direct effect on my life andwhat 2 consneting aldults do in the privacy of their own domain is NOBODIES busines but their own, no the govenrnent be itState or Federal nosig in on what people want
And the Constutions (State & Federal) were not created to define marriage, there were created to establish law of the land or each state and same sex marriage to me sinply is not an imortant enough issue to me to Ammend ANY Constition, to many other more important things on the stove No i am not an expert on this,just my opinion

[awakening2]

Wonder what the fuss is about...couple of years back I read a news that in an Indian (South Asia) village a girl was married to a dog and village elders supervised it...some time early this year another news appeared that an American lady formally sought permission from the owner of a Dolphin and formally married the dolphin in Israel...black and whites...or same sex is all human to human thing...here r the things gone much advanced (liberal or broadminded!)...may be it is time to move over...let every one do what they want to do...and let them be happy ... wish could add to it "as long as they don't make some one unhappy", but the reality will remain that some one will be, if not many. So who's right we should protect? What should be done? Create media movements, street demonstrations? Till the unhappy world acknowledges that all living beings have equal rights? anyone can marry anyone?...I feel not comfortable with such debates as I consider such media as a force to, a subtle but more deadly and effective then the brute force (both can result the same…brute force can force some one to do something which s/he was unwilling to do, media force can also do the same, rather in the later case the media has taken away even the resistance / reasoning power of the one who eventual did that s/he was never interested in doing at the first place! Why to change any one’s view by force? I have my own views and I have lot of respect for them for they have developed overtime with ground research. Similarly, I have respect for others for they have all their reasons for their views. They have the right to reject mine as I have the right to reject theirs, but that should be the limit. No force. Differences become conflicts when force is involved, and it hurts. It is time to live with harmony, accept differences and try and avoid to be on the same place if can’t live with it. If children, parents, friends or partners decide to do something that breaks their ‘former’ loved ones, well the ‘loved ones’ need to learn their new position in the eyes of their children or parents or partners - choice is now with them either to accept ‘new position allocated to them and remain in the circle or reject and move on and continue with their own circle without the parents, children, concerned friends or partners. Amputation is painful, but sometimes it is the only solution to live on, so be it!

And yes I agree, it is better to invest time in things which are of more significance to a society or a nation or the world, then two individuals...

[Lisais mine]

you know, I'm a minister. (okay, I'm also pagan) I feel that the government has no right at all to control marriage. it is a religous matter, better left to your priest. if your faith say you can't be gay, then you can't be gay in that faith. if it says you have to eat blueberry muffins each morning or go to hell, you better eat your fucking muffins!!!

keep the gov't out of religion and religion out of gov't, I say. BTW- if anyone is interested in same sex marriage, I live in virginia and close to maryland- I'll marry you. fuck the laws, because they are unconstutional.

[mkemse]

you know, I'm a minister. (okay, I'm also pagan) I feel that the government has no right at all to control marriage. it is a religous matter, better left to your priest. if your faith say you can't be gay, then you can't be gay in that faith. if it says you have to eat blueberry muffins each morning or go to hell, you better eat your fucking muffins!!!

keep the gov't out of religion and religion out of gov't, I say. BTW- if anyone is interested in same sex marriage, I live in virginia and close to maryland- I'll marry you. fuck the laws, because they are unconstutional.

I agree with you, but the reality is as long as the "Religious Right" is invoved in Politics Goverment will always be involved in matters like this
Because the "Christian Conservatives" will always have imput through the Republican Party, they will support the Party and do what ever is need to get their agenda passed, whether this continues to a lesser degree in Jan after the Dems take more control of Congress is yet to be seen
But it seems ot me and this is only an opinion, that the "Chrisitan Conservatives" have a strangle hold on the Republican Party, it is the Parties base, and they need to decide if they wish to continue with this base or move on
The other issue is Proposition 8 is being challenged in California, those ho oppse it and want same sex marriage to remain legal, contend and I agree that this is a State Contitutional issue and that voters themselves do not have the authority to simply propose some and change the law passedo n that, It has to be changed by a Consitution State Ammendment by State Legislators and not just by a Proposition of the voters as was done, they are saying the Propostion is unconstitutional for this reason

[denuseri]

Please keep in mind historically it was not the "religious right" who started the governments involvement in issues conserning marriage.

Also please try to remember that even though the Republicans are ussually painted by thier opponents as being against such things as Gay rights, or Same Sex Marrige or basically (pro-religion) and the Democrats are ussually painted as being for such things as Socialism, or Disarmament of the population and or (pro athiest), that these are mainly stereotypical archtypes used for election purposes.

Look at all the promises Clinton made to the Gay Community during his initial bid for the White House and then turned around and broke like so much lip service.

Also please keep in mind that proponents of same sex marrige exist in both parties.

Gay, Straight, or otherwise. No political party has a monopoly on sexual prefference or religion despite what the media or fear mongering dogmatic spin doctors wish for you to think.

[mkemse]

No all i am saying is that the base of the Repulican Party is the Religious Right, and that Propostion 8 upon Court Review i believee an I am not a layer will be found illehal withthe Court saying the Consitutionhas to bne Ammened to the Proposition that it can't simply be placed on a ballot as it was, this is the contention of those taking court action, only the Legislature of a State can Ammmend the Contiition, ans that can't be done with a simple Propostion as it was don,e I need to be placed on a Ballot and askedi f the People of the State of ,... wantto Ammned the Consitution to Bar Same Sex Marriage, rather then just placing ino n the Ballott,
I read it had to be done as a Ammmendment and not just as a Proposition as it was,

[mkemse]

i know both paries are like tat, but it seems to be a know fact that the Religious Right control the Republicans more then they do the Democroatic, yes both side have the same issue but the base of the Republican Party is/was the Religious Right and not the base of the Democratic Party

[Oak]

In my little corner of the world, it's fully legal to be married with one of the same sex. It even can be done in a church. If the clergyman is open minded enough. It's not called marriage though. But registered partnership. It gives the same rights as a marriage.

[mkemse]

The US iso nly 200 years behins the rest of the world on these type things

[gagged_Louise]

Check out this Commerical...

This short ad from Björn Borg (yep, the tennis legend who has since established a brand in underwear and sports clothing) is quite beautiful, and a thought-provoking kind of statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPSfjReeC_k (it can also be seen as quicktime video on www.bjornborg.com/en/ ). Will begin running on tv in Sweden next week - hope it appears in the States soon, Texas needs to see this!

[rsjankowski]

i find it a struggle to anaswer this for me as i want people to be happy with whomever they want to be with or how many. i'm a religious man and although i know that the religious implications are wanting to be avoided in such a subject or conversation. it will be bound to come up as if it wasn't there then no one would ever have the problem of asking this question, it would be given that everyone do whatever they please.

but since there are so many people who want standards (this goes for both religious and non religious peooples) and peope who want to evangalyze for the souls and upkeep the morals there will be arguments and people who will either want or fall outside those standards. hence the stuggle for people to do whats right.

as a christian, it's acording to the bible, that it's against god's will. now not to start an argument on religion lets keep with the subject questioned. this is a poll and i'm expressing my opinion. love me or hate me, but i do hope you all love me, females only please. well maybe someday. woohoo. but as a question. i struggle with this question from many angles. so not to make this a longer message than necessary as i can probably drone on for a lot longer if asked. as a christian all things are possible for us but not all things are beneficial for us. same sex marriage in my struggling opinion is a no no even if some of my friends are. i may not like what they have done, but that doesn't mean i love them anyless. i love my friends regardless of the situations. and i wish much happiness for everyone. specialy the ones that have made it to these forums.

don't know what else to say but if anyone has a question i'll be glad to answer them
thanks for listening(reading my opinion)
robert

[denuseri]

The US iso nly 200 years behins the rest of the world on these type things

Please that couldnt be farther from the truth.

An betrays a certian level of "Euro-centric" thinking.

The majority of the counries in the WORLD, don't even condone entertaining the very idea of sexual contact between same sex partners let alone the practice of same sex marrige.

[js207]

The US iso nly 200 years behins the rest of the world on these type things

I really, really hope that's an attempt at a joke. In reality, by allowing gay marriage at all (in MA, for example) the US is far AHEAD of almost every other country in this respect - only a handful of other countries permit it, all introduced since 2001 when the Netherlands became the first. Ludicrous hyperbole like "200 years behind" really don't help your cause, mkemse.

[mkemse]

I really, really hope that's an attempt at a joke. In reality, by allowing gay marriage at all (in MA, for example) the US is far AHEAD of almost every other country in this respect - only a handful of other countries permit it, all introduced since 2001 when the Netherlands became the first. Ludicrous hyperbole like "200 years behind" really don't help your cause, mkemse.

It was also in regard to anything Sexual, on say on TV, RAdio, Magazines some states in the Uniuted STate have laws the do not allow the sale of PLayboy or Penhouse, alot of souther states have Blue Blues were are very much out of date, that prohibit the sale of ANY adult material and when it comes to adult films they have to rent/sell cable versions

I mean sexual attitudes in gneneral in the United States are way outdated not just Same Sex Marriage, my aplogies for not being clearer

look at other nation and see where they are sexual then look at the Unites States, no jstgay marriage, but TV commercials ect ect we lag way behind

[SauvagePouline]

I was reading this, and wanted to find out how far behind we are, and did a quick google search. I found this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

Looks like we are behind a lot of european countries.

[mkemse]

also, my apologies fo hickjacking the thread 1 or 2 posts ago

[lucy]

I was reading this, and wanted to find out how far behind we are, and did a quick google search. I found this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

Looks like we are behind a lot of european countries.

Switzerland also has a registered partnership for same sex couples which gives them equal rights except the right of adoption. The law was approved by 58% of the voters in 2006. Several provinces had such regulations before, most were approved in public votings, some with up to 70% majorities.