Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You make great points in this post, so let me narrow mine a little. You are probably referring to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
As I've said before, gay advocates can probably use Loving v Virginia, which used the 14th amendment in their decision, but in my view there is no lack of equal protection in states that ban gay marriage because marriage is typically defined as between a man and a woman in states that outlaw gay marriage. Get rid of that portion, and your side is good to go. Blacks didn't have that man/woman hurdle to jump and the black/white hurdle couldn't be used since Blacks were already ruled to be equal citizens after the post-Civil War Amendments were passed.
In regards to the safety/driver's license portion of your post, let me use an analogy that is brought up too often, yet valid. What safety issue is there for a polygamist to get married? If anything a polygamist has more discrimination since he/she can be criminally prosecuted for bigamy if he/she marries more than one person of the opposite sex. Would you advocate for a polygamist to gain marriage rights too? If so, that makes your advocacy consistent in my view.
In regards to the shower/rats comment, the license makes the difference. If there is a shower license or rat license, just as there is a marriage license, then yes you should not shower or eat rats without government permission.
Personally, I don't believe the government should be in the marriage business period, and gays/straights/anyone else should be able to marry whomever in a church or organization that will perform the ceremony. Also, there should be civil contracts between whatever couple/group wants to create them.
Once again, I appreciate your viewpoints, because you're challenging me to sharpen mine.
I am glad we are exchanging views with you, thanks. Then the definition on marriage discriminates in my opinion. It violates that principle of privacy as far as I am concerned. That is why the state should stay out of the marriage business. At most if there are benefits given by the government to families then the families can legaly register their beneficieries. In other words let us say Social Security. I am the one that works outside the house. My wife is working at home taking care of the family. In this case I put my wife as the beneficiery of SS benefits. However, if the couple next door are to men and the couple next to them is two women, they can register just as I did with my wife. If further down the street there is another house where 5 share their lives together they come up with the benefits arrangement for social security. You want to get married? Then go to your church of your choice and do so or for that matter simply have ceremony at the local part in front of all your family and friends and tell everybody you are uniting your lives because you love each other.
Any civil contract should apply only to government benefits given families to legaly determine who and how many beneficieries are listed like in the SS example above.
You are teaching me a lot also and testing my views, thanks and take care.
I am glad we are exchanging views with you, thanks. Then the definition on marriage discriminates in my opinion. It violates that principle of privacy as far as I am concerned. That is why the state should stay out of the marriage business. At most if there are benefits given by the government to families then the families can legaly register their beneficieries. In other words let us say Social Security. I am the one that works outside the house. My wife is working at home taking care of the family. In this case I put my wife as the beneficiery of SS benefits. However, if the couple next door are to men and the couple next to them is two women, they can register just as I did with my wife. If further down the street there is another house where 5 share their lives together they come up with the benefits arrangement for social security. You want to get married? Then go to your church of your choice and do so or for that matter simply have ceremony at the local part in front of all your family and friends and tell everybody you are uniting your lives because you love each other.
Any civil contract should apply only to government benefits given families to legaly determine who and how many beneficieries are listed like in the SS example above.
You are teaching me a lot also and testing my views, thanks and take care.
I agree with all of this 100%. Government out of marriage is my personal solution, and I think would be the easiest remedy to make all sides happy. I'm surprised gay marriage advocates haven't made this a possible solution or compromise in the debate.
I'm probably going to move on from this topic unless someone else brings up a new point, so I look forward to seeing your views in other threads!
I agree with all of this 100%. Government out of marriage is my personal solution, and I think would be the easiest remedy to make all sides happy. I'm surprised gay marriage advocates haven't made this a possible solution or compromise in the debate.
I'm probably going to move on from this topic unless someone else brings up a new point, so I look forward to seeing your views in other threads!
It was great sharing views with you, take care and see you somewhere else later.
I believe that there is a right to marry the person of your choice. I submit to the debate the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is an amendment which is often forgotten, sometimes I think for reasons of convenience. It is a bit vague, so people aren't really sure what it means. What it tells me is that there may be rights in the Constitution which are not spelled out, nor given specific protected class status; that does not imply that they are not rights. It dispels the notion that because the Constitution does not specifically protect it, then it must be a privilege. The founders knew that there would be circumstances they could not foresee.
I think that a Supreme Court ruling is an appropriate way to handle this. A Constitutional amendment would be another; although I think it is unnecessary in this case, I would support it. I believe it should be sufficient for the SC to rule that it is a right as defined in the Constitution.
On a personal note, the only reason I can see for people to oppose this is based on religious grounds. If anyone can explain to me any negative consequences for general society, then I may review my stance. It is simply an equal protection issue.
I'm not sure how to answer the question in the OP. First we need to define what 'marriage' really is. Whether someone gets married through a civil or religious ceremony both parties still need a marriage license. So then this is obviously a state issue at this point and not a religious or federal one.
This is a very iffy subject to find an answer to because those who prefer to duck this issue and say 'leave it up to the states' still will allow individual states to discrminate against banning gay marriages or even if a state such as New Hampshire has done to legalize it yes this law could be repealed after the next elections. In the end the Federal Supreme Court has the full authority to overturn any state amendments if they're found to be unconstitutional under federal guidelines.
Normally I consider myself a more conservative person on many issues but it all comes down to whether gay discrimination is the same as racial or gender discrimination. From personally knowing a few gay people what I can honestly say is yes they're really gay, it's NOT a personal choice. They also have nothing to gain by being gay so I'm not sure why they would 'choose' to be gay when it would obviously benefit them to hide it or just turn heterosexual. Since to me this is discrimination on the same level as racial or gender bias then yes the only way it would seem to settle this would be by supporting a federal amendment which would prevent states from discriminating against gay marriages. Of course federal amendments can always be overturned as well with a change of politicians but on the federal level this would be much more difficult than on the state level.
So this is my answer to the OP: create a federal amendment that would end the discrimination against gay marriage on the state level. This is better than outright banning gay marriage or granting it upon an 'insecure basis' on the state level. I normally support Ron Paul on many issues but even on this one I disagree with him. To me discrimination against gays is the same as all other forms of discrimination so I would make an exception here. Normally I support individual state rights on many issues but not in this case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
