I have a gay marriage question?

So a little background check on Romney and he has apparently supported gay rights completely EXCEPT on gay marriage. Obama had pretty much the exact same position until just this past year. But civil unions were ok'd by both.

So what's the deal with this marriage issue that makes people draw the line in the sand? What is so intrinsically different about this civil right as compared to all the other civil rights?

 

Well there are legal differences between the two, but I honestly couldn't tell you why people put so much significance on the word, and the word alone. Marriage has a history in religion and tradition, but I still don't understand what makes it something feel the need to legislate and draw the lines in the sand over. Generally speaking, we are taught to respect other people's diversity in tradition and religious beliefs, allowing each to practice as they so choose.... with this being a notable exception.

 

because govt has no business being involved thus why it can't be called a civil right based upon the true definition of civil rights

if you want to end the fight then vote small govt politicians and help your cause because maybe just maybe we can get them out of our bedrooms

 

Nope he's changed his position per party platform but according to today's news he could be changing it again. Or not.

But he "evolved" when he realised the numbers who actually care were dwindling and the ones who did care would never vote for him anyway.

A measure of expedience which is being tested for constitutionality right now.

For the most part it's people who can't tell the difference between religious "matrimony" and civil marriage.

Basically, when we reach the age of maturity most of us would like the option to form a new family which is recognized as such under law. It's probably one of the most important decisions we'll ever make.

In many places gay people cannot do this. They are permanently the next-of-kin to their parents, not the partner they may have lived with for decades. There doesn't seem to be any logic supporting this and if you were in this position you probably wouldn't support it either.

 

Actually, government IS involved (in spite of "small government" types to wish it wasn't) because one has to get a license to get married, which is essentially entering into a contract. Sure 'marriage' has religious and cultural ramifications but, being as we're an enlightened, multi-cultural society, those don't need to enter into the discussion of the legality of two men or two women engaging in the same licensed contract as a man and a woman does. To NOT allow same-sex marriages, purely from a legalistic aspect (and you can call them what you want, marriages or civil unions) is actually a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

To reiterate, a marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. One can get married by a judge, justice of the peace, ship captain and, with a license, is a LEGAL marriage. Get married in a church or synagogue without a license, it isn't a legal marriage.

 

I agree that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, but it seems that nobody is making an effort to change that. It still remains, marriage for opposite gendered couples is legal, but marriage for same gendered couples is illegal, which is a pointless bias based on sex.

I might be more inclined to remove marriage from the government entirely, rather than support the right for gay couples to marry, if there actually were a large effort being put forth to do so.

I don't see how anything would really change in the government if gay people were allowed to marry. You'd just have a small percent of more couples getting married and receiving the same government benefits and protections as any other couple that can legally marry now.

 

marriage is still not a right no matter how many times the pro-gay crowd repeats it

 

And it is still acknowledged as one by the courts as a matter of case law no matter how many times the anti-gay crowd claims that it's not.

 

alright, then I demand the govt provide my brother a marriage since he can't seem to find one on his own...

noone is entitled to marraige.... noone is denying a gay from gay sex or shacking up (ie - pursuit of happiness)

so again... no rights violations found. Enjoy your civil unions.... I'll enjoy my tax breaks.... bwahahahahaha

 

You've nicely illustrated the difference in the idea of a negative right and positive right. Positive rights are rights that others are obligated to help you with... Parents are obligate to help their children, hospitals are obligated to help the sick even if they can't pay.

And then there's negative rights, like the freedom of speech, religion, to bare arms, etc. you have those rights but nobody is obligated to help you speak, build your church or buy you a gun... Or find you a spouse to marry.

 

yes yes, in this country we can wear short sleeve shirts and we can also bear arms..............(gotcha)

 

Being entitled to marry and being entitled to the government providing you with a marriage are two entirely separate things. I suspect you know that.

 

Being as I'm a newb, you probably haven't read the post that I made just before yours. Of course the government NEEDS to be involved due to the legal issues of childcare and custody, property and probating of wills, etc. The easiest way to do this is offer a contract (license) that specifies what rights and obligations are, the ability to dissolve those contracts and the judgement of courts to arrive at decisions regarding childcare and property should the parties not be able to do so themselves. And, again, there is not only no basis for excluding certain people from these contracts, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If you have a hard time believing this, then note that most "Defense of Marriage" Acts eventually get around to becoming Constitutional Amendments.

 

Hello. Your post communicated some great points!! You are correct (if I read you correctly), gays should NOT be excluded from legal marriage.

 

Marriages are performed by the church. If church accepts marrying gays then so be it.

Marriage licenses are voluntary and a contract with the state that lasts until both parties die and determine such things as separation and divorce agreements. If States wish to change the law to allow civil unions or to give marriage licenses to gays then so be it. It is a State issue and not a Federal issue.

 

There is no unconstitutionality of not allowing some parties to be party to a contract. A contract defined by the State is limited to the definition of that contract. There is nothing unconstitutional about it unless it violates the State constitution in some way. With that kind of thinking, any contract by the government that excludes certain parties would be unconstitutional and many, if not most government contracts explicitly demand who can and cannot participate.

 

So if a state allowed a marriage or civil union between people of say...a different ethnic background, then they should not have the same rights in a state that didn't make such unions lawful? Even under the same Federal constitution?

 

The federal and state government can indeed discriminate legally, provided they are either unchallenged or can provide a rational basis for doing so. But this is not a given. It can be difficult to prove that there is no rational basis, but it can be challenged in court.

One would also have to demonstrate that bein denied the ability to enter said contract on an irrational basis limits the privilages and immunities granted to similarly situated parties, or similar clause of a state constitution.

 

Not all marriages are "performed" by a church. Actually, a church marriage is merely a ceremony, what makes a marriage legal and binding is the license (contract). A judge, justice of the peace or a ship captain can perform the ceremony outside of a church. But a marriage within a church performed without the accompanying license is not a legal marriage as Quakers in Texas fully understood when they were performing gay marriage ceremonies a few years back.

And this is not merely a state issue as the 14th Amendment of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause was designed purely to get around state discrimination. Allowing a man and a woman to enter into a contract (and granting license to) and forbidding two men or two women the same is simply discrimination.

As I said, the proof of this is that states are not merely passing laws (which would be found unconstitutional) buy amending their Constitutions.

I think where you are erring in your reasoning is that you claim the contract is between the government and the signers of the contract where the contract is actually between the two people under the license of the government. Again, this is important solely for issues such as childcare and probate, not because of who is having sex with who.

So, in terms of discriminating because of a "rational basis" when dealing with childcare and probate issues, there is no rational basis for excluding some from entering into a contract while allowing others. If this were so, then states could return to the Jim Crow days and pass laws outlawing interracial marriage. The only argument one can make is on some nefarious "cultural" basis and, considering the multi-cultural aspect of America (to the chagrin of many white Americans), I can't see how that would fly.

 

Actually any person living with someone of the same sex for decades would be in the same position. Anyone living with a closely related adult would be in the same position. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that could warrant such preferential treatment.

 

But they do warrant preferential treatment - because they want to get married.

 

Marriage between a man and a woman was declared a constitutional right because procreation is a constitutional right.

All having absolutely nothing to do with gay relationships.

 

Well that law is based on a huge logical fallacy then - the idea that all men and women can procreate, which they cannot. This would mean the law should be restricted entirely to men and women who can reproduce, which it isnt, thus your argument is entirely false.

 

If marriage isnt made available to any two consenting adults, IT IS preferential treatment to those it is made available to. Marriage is limited to heterosexual couples as the only couples capeable of procreating. If you want to make it available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples you will need some other justification for thje limitation. What would that be?

 

No one claimed they all can procreate. Marriage is limited to heterosexuals because

"Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple...."

Like the quote from the court says that you didnt seem to understand.