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 may or may not agree with the notion of same-sex marriage, but even if you don’t: Once access to marriage has been granted by law – privileges that unarguably affect human welfare and identity at such a fundamental level – is it truly right or fair to take them away?
New Hampshire legalized same-sex marriage on January 1, 2010. The November 2010 elections changed the political balance of the New Hampshire legislature, and the Human Rights Campaign reports that today there are a number of bills in development that would abolish same-sex marriage in the state. Opponents of same-sex marriage commonly refer to the sanctity of the institution of marriage, but if we as a society are to accept this argument, how can we justify reconsidering the right for ANY two human beings to marry based on the outcome of something as temporal as an election cycle? And if one argues that we can do so because same-sex marriage doesn’t count as “real marriage” to begin with, then why should we waste time and capital repealing it?
It seems to me that no state should have the prerogative to play with the institution of marriage on a whim. While I am a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, a part of me has more respect for states like Texas and South Carolina that enshrine a ban in their constitutions than states like California and New Hampshire that extend such a huge thing as marriage to a category of people on such a perilously insecure basis.
You may or may not agree with the notion of same-sex marriage, but even if you don’t: Once access to marriage has been granted by law – privileges that unarguably affect human welfare and identity at such a fundamental level – is it truly right or fair to take them away?
New Hampshire legalized same-sex marriage on January 1, 2010. The November 2010 elections changed the political balance of the New Hampshire legislature, and the Human Rights Campaign reports that today there are a number of bills in development that would abolish same-sex marriage in the state. Opponents of same-sex marriage commonly refer to the sanctity of the institution of marriage, but if we as a society are to accept this argument, how can we justify reconsidering the right for ANY two human beings to marry based on the outcome of something as temporal as an election cycle? And if one argues that we can do so because same-sex marriage doesn’t count as “real marriage” to begin with, then why should we waste time and capital repealing it?
It seems to me that no state should have the prerogative to play with the institution of marriage on a whim. While I am a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, a part of me has more respect for states like Texas and South Carolina that enshrine a ban in their constitutions than states like California and New Hampshire that extend such a huge thing as marriage to a category of people on such a perilously insecure basis.
What say the rest of you?
Governments need to get out the business of marriage, period. Even though the states do have the Constitutional authority to regulate it under the 10th Amendment, I don't see the need for bureaucrats to regulate something that has been a historically religious matter. Let hetereosexuals marry in their churches, and let gays marry in their churches that are open to gay marriage. If none exist, I'm sure some enterprising person or atheist will create a church for this purpose.
Allow anyone to make create civil contracts to cover life or death issues, property inheritances, medical, etc. There can even be standard forms, kind of like state / realtor standardized purchase agreements for buying a house, or they can go to a attorneys who setup practices specifically for these situations at a low price since the docs are standardized.
No one could fight over "marriage" anymore because it has been returned to its' proper place, the church. Weren't most people for "separation of church and state" anyway?
Instead of fighting for special rights and privileges people should fight the government on principles of governance. Why is the state even involved in marriage? When gay marriage is legalized, why not also legalize the marriage between more than two adults (polygamy)?
The simple answer/solution is: the government has no right to set marriage policy. Marriage is between consenting adults and if requested between them and an overseeing institution like a church.
I think it is better for the individual state to define what marriage they recognize. That leaves no gray area.
It seems the main point of the OP is the back and forth of legalizing and de-legalizing of gay marriage. One year it's legal, the next year it won't be when a new party comes to power in that state or a judge overturns it.
Get the government out of the marriage business period and there truly is no gray area.
Instead of fighting for special rights and privileges people should fight the government on principles of governance. Why is the state even involved in marriage? When gay marriage is legalized, why not also legalize the marriage between more than two adults (polygamy)?
The simple answer/solution is: the government has no right to set marriage policy. Marriage is between consenting adults and if requested between them and an overseeing institution like a church.
Governments need to get out the business of marriage, period. Even though the states do have the Constitutional authority to regulate it under the 10th Amendment, I don't see the need for bureaucrats to regulate something that has been a historically religious matter.
No one could fight over "marriage" anymore because it has been returned to its' proper place, the church. Weren't most people for "separation of church and state" anyway?
I genuinely do appreciate your comments, but I have to ask you, as an historical aside: Why do you say that marriage belongs to the Church? The United States accommodates multiple belief systems (to varying degrees - that's another dicsussion), but from our history it is fair to characterize it as a Protestant nation. The Protestant Reformation put marriage in the hands of the state, according to the views of Martin Luther, and Protestant marriage in what is now the U.S. began as a civil institution, not a religious one. To take us back even further in terms of cultural origins, marriage was a secular/civil institution in ancient Greece and Rome as well. I'm not trying to be hostile, but I have often heard people talk about the religious nature of marriage in America and Western culture, and I just can't find the sources of this POV. I'd be open to informed instruction, though.
In another post you clarified my question to a fellow member - that my concern is this seasonal legalizing and de-legalizing. I guess I feel the same way about church and state in this matter. We should either commit to an idea or not, not pick and choose and shift with the wind. If one claims to want to preserve the institution of marriage as part of our cultural heritage, then marriage should actually be a civil institution, as it was in the Plymouth Colony. Again, I'm honestly not hostile to your opinion, which is based on your own accumulation of knowledge. Just arguing my own, based on mine.
Instead of fighting for special rights and privileges people should fight the government on principles of governance.
Sounds great, it really does. But if it weren't for people fighting the government for "special" rights and privileges, neither women nor blacks would have the vote. And we're not talking about "special" here, we're talking about "equal." Why is full personhood in society considered a special request in a nation that presents itself to the world as a model of justice and right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroTrashed
Why is the state even involved in marriage?
Because that's what the Pilgrims brought with them when they came. Nobody made a big deal about it one way or the other until miscegeny became an issue, and nobody thought it needed enshrining in federal or state law until same-sex marriage became a serious issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroTrashed
When gay marriage is legalized, why not also legalize the marriage between more than two adults (polygamy)?
I will never understand why polygamy and/or marrying toaster ovens and goats always finds its way into a same-sex marriage debate. I'll grant you that one man/one woman is different from one man/one man or one woman/one woman, and I understand why people are uncomfortable with that for personal or religious reasons, but we're still talking about a union of two (and only two) consenting adults. Not that big of a leap. Not that long ago, to a lot of Americans - and to some still today - interracial marriage posed the same sort of threat, and those who were against it had a host of Biblical and legal justifications for their stance. But surely we can all see that polygamy is neither miscegeny nor same-sex marriage. Not even close. Polygamy would pose a much greater challenge to every institution in our society, secular or religious, and for obvious, practical reasons.
Given that California and New Hampshire can't even keep same-sex marriage legal, how can anyone argue that legalized polygamy is any kind of threat? To me, this slippery slope is more of a red herring.
Last edited by sautille42; 01-14-2011 at 06:33 PM..
Apart from personal decisions to accept or reject the idea of same-sex marriages occurring in any state, there is also a very important aspect which is seldomly mentioned in arguments opposing this controversial issue, the issue of 'influence'.
One does not have to do much research into the actions of gay activists before detecting a consistent pattern revealing an agenda reaching far beyond the quest for the achievement of being recognized as married couples. It is quite simple, from an objective standpoint, to envision a society with a strong tolerance base extending even into the religious sector. But, it is clear that the gay agenda involves an insatiable motivation to become influential in multiple aspects within society, which puts even the highest of tolerance levels to the test.
With the appointment of Kevin Jennings, by the Obama administration, as Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, there come the issues of influence and empowerment. Jennings primary role would seem to have been one of student protection. Protection against bullying or other forms of torment against students, but as an author of more than a few books on homosexual education explicitly detailing the performance of homosexual acts, and who wrote the forward to another book called, '*****ing Elementary Education', Jennings, as just one example, happily presses beyond the call of duty, in becoming extremely influential in making policy changes.
The list goes on in how this individual openly slandered Christians and as a school teacher, allegedly directly mishandled an instance concerning a boy who he'd believed was a male minor of 15yrs, who had just confessed to having been abused by an older man. Jennings came under fire for not reporting the incident to authorities and to the parents. These are the policy changers. Those who become influential in setting the course of American culture from behind the scenes.
In a 1995 article from a homosexual magazine known as 'Guide', the following was stated:
"We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whomever they choose, we must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality, we must do it for the children's sake".
This publication and its content reflects, the principles, the beliefs, and the views of a certain number of homosexuals, views which don't automatically change when individuals who share these beliefs enter positions within government, or other influential capacities within our society.
Besides the benefits associated with marriage, which same-sex unions would enjoy, such as, insurance breaks, automatic inheritance, exemption from property taxes, in the event of their partner's death, and bereavement leave, more importantly, homosexuals would see their new found marital rights as a milestone victory propelling them on to the next battle, Education being at the forefront.
With approximately 1/3 of the world adhering to some form a Christianity, the implementation of mandatory homosexual education within the educational system would seriously undermine parental authority and the beliefs which many parents instill in their children. It is also not unlikely that a development such as this might cause the bible itself to someday be perceived as anti-gay rhetoric, and what of the Pastors who preach against homosexual behavior? Is this the gateway to eventually charging clergy with promoting discrimination and genderal hatred?
Health class within the educational system would certainly take on a very different appearance, as safe sodomy practices would be introduced to balance out the usual heterosexual material provided.
The issue on the table at present may very well be a presumably innocent exchange of vows, between members of the same sex, (which calls to mind the image of two bearded men lip locking at the alter), but the long term influence would undoubtedly and irreparably damage society on multiple levels.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 01-14-2011 at 08:48 PM..
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.
