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.
I think the section I highlighted in your post articulates exactly where the fault line is for most Americans, who in my opinion share my viewpoint on the matter. And although I've been told I hate and am a homophobe here already, here is what I see as the majority opinion. With a few notable exceptions (incest being one), I believe what adults do in the the privacy of their home is their business and government does not to be involved. When it finds it's way in to the streets, as in the disgusting pics yeladaf linked to of a man ejaculating out of a window and men urinating on each other and drinking it in public, that is very much a different story. Those people are pigs and society has every right to define public standards, which just about everywhere else but SF would not condone such foul behavior. But I digress..With regards to marriage, it is a unique institution but one in which the government has a right to define. Like a drivers license, I see no constitutional right for anyone to define who gets it or does it for themselves, rather it's a matter for elected officials to decide. What I do see as a constitutional issue (or civil rights issue if you will) is the benefits of marriage. Transfer of assets, power of attorney, those things.
There is a middle ground here that while may not be everything to everyone is a workable compromise. That is to leave marriage defined as a union between man and woman (who are not related (closely)) but to extend domestic partnership benefits to those who choose to register for them.
domestic partnership
civil unions...
thats all fine and dandy..
but the underlying issue is that gay relationships are not viewed as equal to hetero relationships under the law.. and that clear fact is why it will not be middle ground. Gays are not wanting people to recognize their union.. anymore than you are wanting other people to pay respects to your marriage.. you really couldn't give a rats butt what other people think... and if you do.. then you have your own issues to work out
Separate but equal sounds like middle ground.. but that also sounds alot like the arguments made by people who supported segregated schools... (its just as good.. but different for the sake of keeping it different)
Religious beliefs can have their governance over the institution of marriage and family and whatever it wants to impose in the hearts and minds of its followers.. but under the eyes of the law is a different story... nobody's relationship should be categorized by the government..
its either all or nobody...
so I'm sorry I would have to disagree with your logic
Religious beliefs can have their governance over the institution of marriage and family and whatever it wants to impose in the hearts and minds of its followers.. but under the eyes of the law is a different story...
Completely different, as it happens, since religion plays no role in marriage at all. Marriage is an entirely civil institution. No religious leader may perform valid marriages unless that person has a license from the state to do so. No people wishing to be married can validly accomplish it without first themselves qualifying for a license from the state. The rights, obligations, and exclusions of marriage are found in no scripture. They are found in the law. Religions are all free to add whatever festive pomp and tradition and story-telling they might wish to, but when all is said and done, these are nothing more than ceremonial glitz and gloss.
Both our law and our traditions call for equality and equal treatment under the law, but in the matter of marriage, we have failed to provide that. Those from different tribes, different religions, and different races have overcome the blatant prejudices that society had allowed the narrow-minded to maintain within the law. The next steps in that process should be obvious...
You're delusional. The Curley's lost this case because they didn't have one.
NAMBLA escaped thanks to the Constitution. The Constitution prevailed. The rule of law prevailed. Shameless debauchers of the fabric of the republic were left to whine over it. And whine, they do.
You decry the "debauching" of the Constitution. I decry the murder of a little boy and the exoneration of accomplices to that murder.
Thanks for reminding me of the difference between us.
You decry the "debauching" of the Constitution. I decry the murder of a little boy and the exoneration of accomplices to that murder.
Thanks for reminding me of the difference between us.
start a new thread about NAMBLA or whatever and carryon about it there.. don't bring such perverts into the discussion of marriage.. its off topic and disrespectful to equate the two in this conversation...
start a new thread about NAMBLA or whatever and carryon about it there.. don't bring such perverts into the discussion of marriage.. its off topic and disrespectful to equate the two in this conversation...
I agree. The point of introducing the NAMBLA case was solely to demonstrate the often unexpected ways in which modifications of current definitions of marriage, and other "progressive" ideas concerning wholesale changes in our social institutions, can have unintended and unpleasant consequences. I stand by that argument.
However, I repeat my acknowledgement (stated, with an apology for any unintended hijacking, way back in the thread) that the two topics are too unrelated to be housed in the same thread...
start a new thread about NAMBLA or whatever and carryon about it there.. don't bring such perverts into the discussion of marriage.. its off topic and disrespectful to equate the two in this conversation...
It's their "slippery slope" tactic.
I say, since straight marriage seems to be leading to gay marriage, which will lead to man-dog marriages and man-boy marriages, we should abolish marriage altogether, since the progenitor of our slide into the horrors that await us are straight marriages.
domestic partnership
civil unions...
thats all fine and dandy..
but the underlying issue is that gay relationships are not viewed as equal to hetero relationships under the law.. and that clear fact is why it will not be middle ground. Gays are not wanting people to recognize their union.. anymore than you are wanting other people to pay respects to your marriage.. you really couldn't give a rats butt what other people think... and if you do.. then you have your own issues to work out
Separate but equal sounds like middle ground.. but that also sounds alot like the arguments made by people who supported segregated schools... (its just as good.. but different for the sake of keeping it different)
Religious beliefs can have their governance over the institution of marriage and family and whatever it wants to impose in the hearts and minds of its followers.. but under the eyes of the law is a different story... nobody's relationship should be categorized by the government..
its either all or nobody...
so I'm sorry I would have to disagree with your logic
OK.....so this is about the institution itself and wanting people to recognize their union. Is it the label ("Marriage"that counts or is it about the benefits that come from marriage that count?
Sorry, but there is no constitutional right for individuals to decide for themselves how marriage is defined. A state has the right to create (or adopt) the institution and define it how it wants. It is under no more obligation to allow two non-related men (or women) to marry than it is to allow brother/sister or three/four/five way marriage.
OK.....so this is about the institution itself and wanting people to recognize their union. Is it the label ("Marriage"that counts or is it about the benefits that come from marriage that count?
Sorry, but there is no constitutional right for individuals to decide for themselves how marriage is defined. A state has the right to create (or adopt) the institution and define it how it wants. It is under no more obligation to allow two non-related men (or women) to marry than it is to allow brother/sister or three/four/five way marriage.
it is both.. the legal term and the benefits awarded.. that is the issue. its not as black and white as you make it out to be.. that is why the courts are allowed to listen to the cases and weigh it against the state constitution.. In california's case their state constitution specifically states that there is not to be any discrimination against someone in regards to race, sex, handicap, religion, or sexual orientation.. therefore when it went to the courts.. they applied that to the ruling..
granted here in idaho there is no such thing in our state constitution it does not allow discrimination.. but sexual orientation is not listed on idaho's laws... therefore giving no merit for such a ruling in idaho. make sense???
BUT by having one or two states that allow it.. and us being the UNITED states of america opens the door on a national scale to where further interpretation and actions come into play.. I'm not saying one is right and the other isn't... I'm just saying.. that when two straight people who live in ohio, go to las vegas to get married.. their marriage is recognized when they get back home... For a gay couple it is not... The issue is not a closed door, religious conservative groups are actively trying to close as many doors on the issue as they can... and in all fairness, gay marriage advocates are trying to open them... It is the process by which our legal system works.... this will continue to be a he said she said battle until something happens at the federal level.. because federal law trumphs state law... So for politicians to say.. "it's up to the states" is another way of them avoiding the issue.. when the fact of the matter is.. something NEEDS to happen at the federal level.... so that this issue can be put to rest... atleast for now...
Sorry, but there is no constitutional right for individuals to decide for themselves how marriage is defined. A state has the right to create (or adopt) the institution and define it how it wants. It is under no more obligation to allow two non-related men (or women) to marry than it is to allow brother/sister or three/four/five way marriage.
The state has the power to decide what qualifications and what priveleges shall be construed in the institution of marriage, but it must be mindful of the constraints imposed upon it by the Equal Protection Clause, and as well of the fact that the Due Process Clause specifically protects personal decision-making with respect to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. The state may not cross the bounds marked by those limitations, save that it can propose and defend a legitimate state interest in doing so. A general unpopularity of the persons or practices at issue does not constitute a legitimate state interest...
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.
