This betokens progress that will have homophobes advocating sharia law

You are free, as an American, to found your own church and impose whatever restrictions you fancy upon its adherents in regard to gender strictures.

Presently and, very likely, for the foreseeable future, some churches in the US discriminate in the matter and others do not.

 

True. The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal arbiter, and the predominant sentiment of Americans only betokens cultural approval, but it is fortuitous when they coincide.

 

that's why we prefer to live in a secular country like the USA

religion and government should not mix

....

 

you aren't being denied anything because you are gay. I also am not allowed to marry a close relative, many spouses, or the same gender.

 

Hasty generalization. Just because someone doesn't share your opinion, that doesn't make them uneducated.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about many things. That doesn't mean there are no rights connected to those unmentioned things. See the 9th amendment. (I'm not submitting this as evidence of marriage being a right; merely refuting the assertion that the failure of something to appear in the Constitution disqualifies it from being a right.)

Perhaps so; doesn't make you correct on the topic of whether or not marriage is a right, though.

The Constitution does not determine what is or isn't allowed, except with respect to the actions of government.

Still more to it than that. You don't get to declare the debate over, merely because you think your opinion is somehow superior to that of anyone else.

I actually agree with you about "full faith and credit" - the courts have long recognized an exemption on matters of public policy.

As for whether or not marriage is a right, the longstanding interpretation of law by the courts indicates that it is. As mentioned before, the Constitution is not the last word on what is or isn't a right - and it was never intended to be. But more to the point - the things that are in the Constitution restrict the power of government to impose itself upon people's rights - whether or not they're explicitly spelled out as such in the Constitution.

With regard to the question at hand, there is no dispute that states have the power to regulate marriage. What is at dispute, is whether they can regulate marriage in way that imposes on the rights of those within their jurisdiction, including their right to the equal protection of the law. States' powers are not absolute, even if the matter in question is otherwise within their jurisdiction by default for lack of mention in the Constitution.

 

On that, I would agree.

 

Let's address one more thing: The equal protection of the laws is not predicated on identical situation, as few people are identically situated. Similar situation with regard to the purpose of the law in question usually suffices. What's more, clever wording of the law for the purpose of disadvantaging some group without explicitly mentioning them doesn't make the law "constitutional". If the obvious outcome of a law is to disadvantage some group without any rational relation to its alleged purpose, we should certainly question its constitutionality, and upon it being challenged, possibly subject it to a higher level of scrutiny.

That's the situation we have at hand. Same-sex couples are challenging state bans against recognition of their marriages; bans which seem to have no rational relation to their alleged purpose(s), and seem clearly intended to disadvantage them as a group. Hence the reason the Supreme Court has asked attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants in the appeal of the 6th Circuit Court's ruling to address the scope and effect of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

 

Equality dictates that the same restrictions apply for any two adult Americans wishing to enter into a marriage contract with one another, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.

(Obviously, a bigot can no longer tell a Black American he or she has equal rights and yet is only allowed to marry another Black American since Loving v Virginia.)

One may question the rationale for prohibitions of polyandry and polygamy, or consanguinity restrictions for any same-sex couple or any celibate, barren, or elderly heterosexual couple (or those that have otherwise taken measures to avoid reproducing,) but those are all separate issues from the equal rights of couples.


.
.

 

we DO have the same restrictions.... neither one of us should be able to marry 1. same gender 2. multiple people 3. close relatives.


I have the same restriction as you. Love is not a constitutionally protected right.

unlike race (which can be scientifically proven). Being born gay can't be scientifically proven anymore than being born attracted to your sibling.

 

How jealous you must be.

 

Not in some states. Just as a Black American and a White American were not allowed to enter into marriage contracts in some states before their equal rights under the US Constitution were enforced in 1964, so today there are still some states that will only allow a male to marry a female and a female to marry a male. That does not constitute equal rights any more that a state dictating that males can only marry males and females only females. It is blatant gender discrimination either way, and neither type of restriction should be imposed upon Americans.

 

black or white can be genetically proven, and thus, not coparable to who you are attracted to which hasn't been genetically proven. It's like saying FDR was genetically born attracted to his cousin,

 

Genetic predispositions are not the basis for equality under law, of course. Advanced first-word nations with a Christian heritage as well as United States federal government and 37 states now recognize marriage contract without discriminating in regard to gender. Since more than 70% of the US population live in jurisdictions that do not discriminate, it is now the norm in America, and progress will likely continue.

Those who wish to perpetuate discrimination where it still pertains may be fighting a lost cause, especially since equality has not resulted in the moral collapse about which they had railed. Demonstrably, there has been no such societal disruption.

Their prejudice is enforced under sharia law in predominantly Islamic nations, but increasing less so in Christendom.

 

Did your Ouiji Board tell you that? Or was it tea leaves. Comical.

 

So then you admit that you would support people treating gays as inferior?

Your own posts really show that you believe society is treating gays as lesser class citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, that same exact argument was used against interracial marriage.

Guess what it lost then to.

 

Race and a Behavior are not comparable. We pick and choose acceptable Behaviors in society all the time.

 

funny.... "I was born attracted to my sibling" is denounced but "I was born gay, even though noone can prove that claim" is supposed to be accepted because they say so.... lol

 

For it to be banned the state needs to present a valid interest.

They can not do so.

- - - Updated - - -

False.

Gay marriage will be legalized wethere homosexuality is in born or a choice.

 

I understand it will.... the pendelum is swinging that way currently.... it will eventually swing back. That's not what we're debating. What we're debating is if you are allowed to disagree with it. I don't have to accept the behavior simply because the state makes it legal. I don't have to accept smoking pot in my house by my spouse/adult child even if I lived in a state that allowed it...

If my son were to bring home a guy and announce he wanted to marry him.... and I didn't approve, there are plenty on this board (and in my community) that would demand I'd be fired from my job in education because I refuse to accept a choice my son made (I'm not rejecting my son, I'm rejecting the behavior.... that's a key point btw. I would also reject him smoking pot, too, despite it being legal in more and more places)

The big thing that homosexual activists can't differentiate is the fact that Christians can absolutely hate the sin and not the sinner.


as a Christian, there are a ton of behaviors out there I don't like, and I don't want my family exposed to. legal drugs, alcholism, even heterosexual behaviors with multiple partners.

if my older child were parading through a bunch of whores through my house around my younger kids, I wouldn't lose my job if my disapproval became public knowledge
if my older child was bringing home guys and parading them around my younger kids. People would be demanding I lose my teaching job "because homophobic bigot"

Both are behaviors I don't want others in my home exposed to....

 

I think you have the lens twisted a bit.

We aren't talking about "banning" we are talking about taking an institution, and changing it to allow things that don't fit.

Big difference.

What is the benefit to Society to toss the criteria and open up the Institution to anyone who comes along?

We aren't talking about banning something, we're talking about instating something.

 

They also execute Christians in Muslim countries. Maybe you're on to something, we should treat Christians like gay people and not allow them to marry. Good idea Professor.

 

I don't look to the .gov to legitamize my personal relationships. I would be married to my wife whether we did it through the state or not.


difference is, gays can't get tax breaks by just shacking up.

 

If you don't look to the .gov to ligitimize your personal relationships, then why did you register your marriage with the state? You could have just been married without any tax benefits. Please BS someone else.

 

I'm saying, if .gov were to pass a law that said Christians couldn't get married... that wouldn't change the relationship my wife and I have in the eyes of our Lord....

Christians married LONG before the US govt, and will continue long AFTER the US govt collapses.


So have gays. But between gays and Christians.... only the gays seem concerned with the feeling that their "marraige" isn't legitamate unless .gov puts it's stamp on the paper.

 

And obviously that isn't true because as you mentioned people were getting married before government. So obviously Christians thought they needed .gov to legitimize their relationships because they made laws to give tax breaks to married folks. You can call it what you want, but even you used .gov to get your tax breaks why? It's not needed correct? So why did you?

The very simple fact is if YOU are going to get your marriage legitimized through the .gov (which you did, you got the license), why do you not expect gays to do the same?