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.
Wrong analogy, the Federal government has the right to enforce its laws on marriage, the states have limited control of marriage, that is why the federal government had to force all states to accept interracial marriage in the US when more than 70% opposed it. Marriage was redefined to include couples of different races. It is a federal issue because the 1049 plus/minus marriage rights are granted by the federal government.. Do not like gay marriage, do not get one, simple.
That was was not about redefining marriage, it was about getting all the states to follow the 14th amendment.
That was was not about redefining marriage, it was about getting all the states to follow the 14th amendment.
Have you read the 14th amendment?
Quote:
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are homosexuals not persons, or American citizens?
Homosexuals are being denied equal protection of the laws by the states, AND the federal government.
Moves to legalise gay marriage cleared a crucial parliamentary hurdle as it emerged that civil partnerships could be abolished as the price for getting David Cameron's plans on to the statute book.
Oh, okay. So you're fine with gay people paying taxes, but not if they get any of the benefits. Gotcha.
A very complicated legal issue relating to taxes, privileges, and issues with polygamous relationships.
You draw the line at arrangements that have no valid legal argument supporting them. The government must have a compelling state interest in stopping something for them to do so. They don't have one for same-sex marriage.
I would argue that when government wants to create some new right, new program, or new law, they have to justify how and why this benefits society. It's why bridges to nowhere are rejected, just because some politician wants to do something, is not enough, they have to justify why they are doing it, and does the benefit exceed the costs and burdens associated with implementing it.
It's not always how government works, when it takes our money or dictates how must follow new laws, but it's how it should. I know, it's a pipe dream, because reality seems to be that government tells us how it's going to be, and we are not allowed to object, all we are for is to pay taxes, and shut up
It's easily understood why government was asked to endorse marriage. Men and women make babies, and we want to have those babies raised by their parents, so they grow up to be well adjusted, functioning and contributing members of society. these children grow up to be mothers and fathers, and create a strong social network of family, which takes care of each other, and reduces the burden from the rest of society and government.
We endorse marriage because we want to prevent bastards raised by single parents, raised by the state in foster homes or orphanages, because these erode the family unit and increase the financial burden on the state's social welfare systems.
Yes they were. DOMA is a federal statute defining marriage.
...as a reaction to the gay community trying to redefine marriage.
The problem was we never thought we had to actually define marriage, as between men and women, it was taken for granted that this was basic, common sense.
It's like if we developed a welfare program for the needy and the poor people, without actually defining who the poor were. Now we have wealthy people claiming a right to welfare because they need it, and they are poorer then Bill Gates.
We endorse marriage because we want to prevent bastards raised by single parents, raised by the state in foster homes or orphanages, because these erode the family unit and increase the financial burden on the state's social welfare systems.
Hmmmm.... How's that currently working for you? 40.8% of all births are to unmarried woman. If you want kids raised in married 2 parent households, then pass laws that support more marriages. Why should the sex of the people married matter if family stability is the goal?
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.