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.
Until there's an amendment saying that anyone can marry, states have that right to allow or disallow.
My point is that marriage shouldn't be state government's business either. Besides, the idea that states' rights were meant to take over and control people where the federal authority stopped is blasphemous at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
To clarify, "state-controlled" was meant to mean "government controlled" in the above context. I don't think that I disagree with you on this issue if I understand your position correctly.
The government should not issue licenses to be married, be it at the Federal, State, or Local level.
Maybe "marriage" should not be the determining factor in legal issues at all. There are lots of entities that recognize documented same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partnerships. To me, the word "marriage" belongs in churches.
Which is odd since marriage did not start or spend most of history as a religious institution. Marriage did not have a religious component in England (which is where our laws come from) until the late 18th Century.
Marriage has always historically been a business contract between families, in most cases where the man gained ownership of his wife (or often wives).
Of course DOMA violates the equal protection clause.
Consider two legally married couples in Iowa - one a male-male gay couple, one a male-female straight couple. If the man in the straight marriage employs his wife, he does not have to pay unemployment insurance tax of his wife's wages. If one man in the gay marriage employs his husband, he must pay this tax. Why - because of DOMA. DOMA treats married homosexuals differently from married heterosexuals (namely it denies married homosexuals 1100 civil rights). As such, it clearly violates the equal protection clause.
You're wasting time with Calvinist. He always argues that gays can marry the opposite sex just like straights, therefore they are equal.
You're wasting time with Calvinist. He always argues that gays can marry the opposite sex just like straights, therefore they are equal.
It's a stupid argument, and it's irrelevant to this case. This ruling said that DOMA is unconstitutional in that it treats legally married homosexuals differently than legally married heterosexuals.
It doesn't speak to states that don't allow gay marriage, just to how the federal government treats married homosexuals in the states that do.
If you're going to challenge my opinion that the government shouldn't issue licenses to be married, please do so. Otherwise, you're just name-calling. Why do you feel that it is imperative for the government to license relationships?
I never said that. I was referring to the fact that most liberals tend to think those that don't agree with them are idiots.
I never said that. I was referring to the fact that most liberals tend to think those that don't agree with them are idiots.
Who says I'm a liberal? Who says I think people who don't agree with me are idiots? I'm simply suggesting that people give more support for their arguments. For all I know, they may have very good reasons why they think that marriage must require government licensure.
It's never been an issue until recently. What non-gay man or woman would WANT to marry someone of the same gender?
Hmmm...
What homosexual would WANT to marry someone of the opposite gender?
Yet, you argue that heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
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.
