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.
Agreed. Any civil society would ensure that were so.
All I've tried to relate, is that same sex couples have some very fundamental differences which I believe require a whole different set of laws to address them. The two types of marriage laws need to be separate because the laws for traditional marriage are complicated enough, but work relatively well since we have created them and refined them over the centuries.
What differences? The only difference is it is two of the same sex, but none of the 1049 federal rights are contingent on sex or sexuality, they are not gender specific. All the same benefits and rights fit same sex marriage as well as heterosexual marriage. There is no need for a different set of rules, laws, benefits or rights.
The answer is simple, and it also answers why it should not promote, or allow same sex marriage or legalization of drugs
The government should promote those things which benefit the nation as whole. This is what "promote general welfare" in the Constitution means. Promoting traditional marriage benefits the nation as whole, because it brings forth new generations of people, and gives the children an opportunity to grow up in a family with a father and a mother, like nature intended. Familes stabilize the nation as whole. Kids who grow up in families are far less likely to end up as bad apples of the society. It keeps crime low, and number of productive people high. Family life even tames the men. It is also an economic issue, because a stable nation is an an economically thriving nation, with fewer people to support.
So, promoting traditional family benefits the nation as whole.
Same sex marriage does not benefit the nation in any way, so there is no reason to promote it.
The government does three things:
1. Promote those things which benefit the nation, like traditional family.
2. Allow freedoms. We are free to work, earn income and own property, live where we want etc
3. Prohibit those things which are harmful to the nation.
Violent crime is definetly harmful to the nation, which is why it is prohibited. Drug use is harmful to nation as whole which is why it is prohibited. Same sex marriage? I have yet to see one compelling reason why it should be promoted, or even allowed.
I am sorry, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way.
Gay marriage does not harm society - therefore the government should not stop it.
Is it not possible that kids in single parent homes struggle with education, crime, a future of poverty and being single parents themselves...because 1 parent is not enough to properly watch and teach the kids? 2 parents is twice as good...assuming there is no abuse etc...
The church has always recognized marriage as between one man and one woman, it's some in the gay community who want to force the change, and ridicule, malign and insult the church.
Like I said, most of the population agreed to civil unions, but instead of accepting that, the gay movement has rejected it, and started a conflict to change traditional marriage, which has upset, infuriated and hardened many people against, so they refuse to budge or even agree to civil marriages.
Some people are on a crusade to force changes to traditional marriage, and are throwing bombs and burning bridges. If militant gays were not name calling and trying to destroy people's lives and businesses for disagreeing with changing traditional marriage, they would have already had civil unions.
Why can't we got the sensible route, and we had civil marriages first, and the world did not come to an end....
Same sex marriage is new, the state and local laws to govern it have not even been written yet. We still have a lot of legal battles within the same-sex community to be hammered out. These will be lawsuits brought about by gay couples against their partners, against surrogates, the government, businesses etc... to resolve issues we never really thought of. So give them a decade or so to smooth them out and get them working to everyone's satisfaction... then we might see, a quite and acceptable change to roll civil marriage into one single form of marriage.
But instead of a gradual change, with a new form of marriage to work out thru the voters, the courthouses and local and state legislators, we have a war going on in society because people want it all NOW, when we are not ready.
Is it necessary to lie? Most states that ban same sex marriage also ban civil unions, domestic partnerships and any kind of legal bound that may resemble heterosexual marriage. Florida is a good example. Same sex marriage is not new, many societies have recognized same sex marriages and many of the native American tribes also recongized same sex unions. And the church has its own weddings and can refuse to marry anyone for any reason, but a church wedding is not a legal marriage, a civil marriage is. All the laws governing heterosexual marriage also apply to same sex marriage and marriage benefits are already paid for by tax payers and we are also tax payers. There is no reason to create a separate set of laws for same sex marriage. You are just fishing for excuses to deny us the same rights and benefits that we too pay for.
Yep and blacks and whites were treated equally under marriage laws too. Neither could marry someone of a different race.
That argument has been tried and has failed, but if you want to go with that one, I would love to hear what a judge has to say about it.
Oh wait, I don't have to wait, judge Shelby addressed this issue.
Quote:
The State asserts that Amendment 3 does not abridge the Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry
because the Plaintiffs are still at liberty to marry a person of the opposite sex.
snip
But this purported liberty is an illusion.
The right to marry is not simply the right to become a married person by
signing a contract with someone of the opposite sex. If marriages were planned and arranged by
the State, for example, these marriages would violate a person’s right to marry because such
arrangements would infringe an individual’s rights to privacy, dignity, and intimate association. A person’s choices about marriage implicate the heart of the right to liberty that is protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 851. The State’s argument disregards these
numerous associated rights because the State focuses on the outward manifestations of the right
to marry, and not the inner attributes of marriage that form the core justifications for why the Constitution protects this fundamental human right.
So yet again, that argument doesn't stand constitutional muster.
Want to try another argument?
I don't' have to try another one, because I was right the first time, and the supreme court seems to agree. But then again, it has nothing to do with the topic.
I don't' have to try another one, because I was right the first time, and the supreme court seems to agree. But then again, it has nothing to do with the topic.
Wrong, the supreme court struck down that argument when it comes to marriage in the Loving V Virginia case.
The supreme court has not made ANY ruling on SSM. The have made a ruling on DOMA, which is being cited by other judges to allow SSM. (see the Utah case)
The supreme court made no ruling at all in the prop 8 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.
