The Case For Marriage Equality

[mrjarrell]

The folks at CATO more than make the case in a rational manner, (as usual). There's no denying it's a Right to marry, the courts already ruled on that in Loving. Since it is a Right, then it belongs to everyone and it's time for people denied their Rights to stand up and be counted. Nine states and DC have already seen the writing, the rest will have to eventually come around, if they choose rationality over emotion and superstition.

[ame]http://youtu.be/DWp79jvy9aA[/ame]

 

[Double T]

Though I personally disagree with homosexuality, I have indeed lost long standing friendships over my beliefs regarding the inability of the government to recognize SSM's.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think Jesse Ventura said "If you think that this country should legislate love, then you probably just aren't getting enough love yourself".

 

[RockofStrength]

No law makes homosexual marriage equitable or right, and no law should force me to acknowledge them as such.

Of course, no law makes heterosexual marriage permissible either, and the government needs to stop telling me what I may and may not do in this case...

 

[fallenangel1]

people get so annoying with this stuff .. its about personal freedoms and those things that go along with them. So get over it, marriage is a right.. you don't have to like it or even personally acknowledge it. But it is every ones personal choice and it doesn't/shouldn't matter what other people think about it. It kills me how many hypocrites we have on here that preach personal freedoms ... BUT only when it comes to their personal freedoms, when it comes to someone else's they don't mind walking all over their rights to do as they wish. Just get over it, it's not about you or your religion or your personal beliefs. It's about the right for everyone to choose for them selves how they want to live their own life.

/thread

 

[Stschil]

The Givernment shouldn't be in the business of legislating who can choose to be with who. That said, to ensure that isnt the case, I think the tax code needs to be revised to reflect that.
No more marriage exemption, no estate tax, no earned income credit, etc.

There is one faction within the LGBT community that truly only want recognition, and the ability to make that choice, I have no issue with that. However, the driving force behind it all, IMHO, is money and Gubbmint cheese. With This, I do have a problem and its not really so much as them wanting it, it's more my aversion to the Tax Code being a Social Engineering tool that should be abolished.

 

[CarmelHP]

people get so annoying with this stuff .. its about personal freedoms and those things that go along with them. So get over it, marriage is a right.. you don't have to like it or even personally acknowledge it. But it is every ones personal choice and it doesn't/shouldn't matter what other people think about it. It kills me how many hypocrites we have on here that preach personal freedoms ... BUT only when it comes to their personal freedoms, when it comes to someone else's they don't mind walking all over their rights to do as they wish. Just get over it, it's not about you or your religion or your personal beliefs. It's about the right for everyone to choose for them selves how they want to live their own life.

/thread

How is marriage a "right?" I see people on here simultaneously making the assertion that government has no place in marriage with the demand that government enforce a certain view of marriage as a "right."

 

[Sfrandolph]

I really don't give a cr*p whether gay marriage is made legal or not. I personally find the gay lifestyle disgusting and abhorrent. As long as I don't have to see the gays and lesbians kissing all over each other on the street or on TV, I couldn't care less about what they do in the privacy of their own homes. But when it is flaunted in front of normal people (and yes gays are NOT normal) it is offensive to me. Just as offensive as someone smoking in a public location or drinking in public. Yeah, the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[ziggy]

You should give a c*** because if it becomes the law of the land, anyone who disagrees will be deemed, by law, to be a hate-mongering, evil person, no different than an outspoken racist. Your freedom to quietly disagree will be gone. Your church will have to accomodate gay marriages the same way they accomodate straight marriages.
I do not care what people do in their bedroom but I do not want them cramming their religion down our throats, which is exactly what will happen.

 

[$mooth]

You should give a c*** because if it becomes the law of the land, anyone who disagrees will be deemed, by law, to be a hate-mongering, evil person, no different than an outspoken racist. Your freedom to quietly disagree will be gone. Your church will have to accomodate gay marriages the same way they accomodate straight marriages.
I do not care what people do in their bedroom but I do not want them cramming their religion down our throats, which is exactly what will happen.

Interesting perspective. Are churches currently forced to perform inter-race marriages? As in, has there been a church that denied a couple a marriage based on their race and the courts forced them to perform it?

I mean, we're supposed to be tolerant of all religions, but I know the Catholic church can refuse to wed couples that are not Catholic. So i know they're not being forced to accommodate anything.

 

[arthrimus]

No marriage should be recognized by the government. Marriage is a private religious and cultural institution. Does the government legally recognize a bar mitzvah? No. Why not? Because it's a cultural and religious ritual and they have no business interfering with it. The same should be applied to marriage.

If you want to have a ceremony then go for it! Whether you're gay, straight, marrying three people, I don't care. The only thing the government needs to know is that two or more consenting people are engaging in a long term domestic business partnership, and the only reason that they need to know that is for property separation, and emergency contact stuff. Things that should be available to everyone by contract, independent of marriage, in the first place.

 

[rambone]

How is marriage a "right?"

Do you personally feel marriage is a right, or no?

Lets say you were in love with a woman 100 years ago. If you were denied marriage because she was stricken with an illness, too old, or she was the wrong color, would you feel your rights were violated?

These arbitrary rules existed at one time.

 

[mrjarrell]

How is marriage a "right?" I see people on here simultaneously making the assertion that government has no place in marriage with the demand that government enforce a certain view of marriage as a "right."

The SCOTUS was very clear in Loving v. VA that marriage was a fundamental right for American citizens. They clarified it for those who couldn't, or wouldn't accept it.

 

[mrjarrell]

You should give a c*** because if it becomes the law of the land, anyone who disagrees will be deemed, by law, to be a hate-mongering, evil person, no different than an outspoken racist. Your freedom to quietly disagree will be gone. Your church will have to accomodate gay marriages the same way they accomodate straight marriages.
I do not care what people do in their bedroom but I do not want them cramming their religion down our throats, which is exactly what will happen.

Codswallop! That's been shot down in every state that has gay marriage. No church has ever been forced to provide a service they were opposed to. There are plenty of churches out there who aren't run by bigots and are welcoming of gay couples. No-one has been or will be forced to do it.

 

[CarmelHP]

Do you personally feel marriage is a right, or no?

Lets say you were in love with a woman 100 years ago. If you were denied marriage because she was stricken with an illness, too old, or she was the wrong color, would you feel your rights were violated?

These arbitrary rules existed at one time.

No, except for 1 man and 1 woman, in states that define it such, or any gender with any gender for states that define it thus. It is not for the federal courts to define it any other way than the states do absent some positive enactment of a Constitutional Amendment. Race has nothing to do with this, the Court in Loving pointed out that racial discrimination was specifically dealt with by the Reconstruction Amendments and miscegenation statutes were an incident or badge of slavery. If you want to find a "right" for gay marriage, at least have the honesty to take it to the people and amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the states are free to legislate in that area, or shut up about federalism. The ERA was rejected with one of the arguments made at the time that it would open up demands for homosexual marriage. That argument was derided at the time with claims that noone would EVER suggest such a thing, but here we are. Convince the state legislatures to go along with you and I won't argue it. The demands to shove this down the throat of the public I do oppose.

 

[CarmelHP]

The SCOTUS was very clear in Loving v. VA that marriage was a fundamental right for American citizens. They clarified it for those who couldn't, or wouldn't accept it.

If the Court said that marriage must be redefined to permit same-sex marriage then everyone but you missed it. The Court said that it's a right within the confines of state law, but not subject to racial classifications because of the specific purpose of the 14th Amendment to end such racial classifications.

 

[No2rdame]

Codswallop! That's been shot down in every state that has gay marriage. No church has ever been forced to provide a service they were opposed to. There are plenty of churches out there who aren't run by bigots and are welcoming of gay couples. No-one has been or will be forced to do it.

Exactly. Churches can still choose to opposed gay marriage from a religious standpoint, the argument before the SC is strictly on legal grounds. Stschil nailed it. It is about taxation and equal rights from a government standpoint.

Whether you agree or disagree with gay lifestyles, the marriage issue for most of them has to do with common rights. If my wife is incapacitated I can make decisions on her behalf without having to get an attorney to draw up a document giving me those rights. If she dies, for the most part the estate goes to me with no taxation. If I carried her on my health insurance, the additional premium is currently not taxable. The list goes on and one. For most gays and lesbians, this is all they ask. Not all of them want to flaunt their lifestyle, they don't want churches to have to recognize them, they just want the legal and civil benefits that come with marriage.

 

[Indy317]

No church has ever been forced to provide a service they were opposed to. There are plenty of churches out there who aren't run by bigots and are welcoming of gay couples. No-one has been or will be forced to do it.

Unfortunately, there is a small % of the pro-gay marriage contingent that is hell bent on getting gay marriage legalized based on one thing only: Their excessive hatred of religion, mostly the concept of Jesus and religious beliefs that say homosexual acts are a sin. These people will absolutely demand a religious institution perform a marriage of a same sex couple. The ultimate goal is to codify sexual preference into part of the various civil rights acts, making sexual preference equal to that of race, religion, etc.. Homosexual militants have already used state and local laws and ordinances protecting sexual preference against private businesses. I guess the question is, does a church have the right to block access to black, Asian, Hispanic, or males or females? If so, then I don't think it will be an issue. However, if a Catholic church, or Pentecostal church were told they can't block black people from becoming members, then churches will be forced to perform any and all marriage ceremonies.

My personal opinions are that government rights and benefits should apply to all, however I find it very hypocritical that some pro-gay marriage supporters end up turning into anti-personal liberty types as soon as one brings up the concept of plural marriage. You know, gay folks claim they are being discriminated against because they can't get married. If a gay couple walked into a courthouse for a marriage license, they would just be turned way. However, if a married woman walked into a county courthouse and signed another marriage license with another man, she would be guilty of a felony and imprisoned:

IC 35-46-1-2 Bigamy
Sec. 2. (a) A person who, being married and knowing that his spouse is alive, marries again commits bigamy, a Class D felony.

Even if the courthouse clerk knew the woman was already married to another man and denied the application, the woman could still be charged and imprisoned:

IC 35-41-5-1 Attempt
Sec. 1. (a) A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. An attempt to commit a crime is a felony or misdemeanor of the same class as the crime attempted. However, an attempt to commit murder is a Class A felony.

If you ask me, Mormons and Muslims who wish to engage in multiple spouse marriage are just as discriminated against as a same sex couple who can't marry.

 

[mrjarrell]

If you ask me, Mormons and Muslims who wish to engage in multiple spouse marriage are just as discriminated against as a same sex couple who can't marry.

I, and most libertarians, do not disagree with that.

 

[Denny347]

How is marriage a "right?" I see people on here simultaneously making the assertion that government has no place in marriage with the demand that government enforce a certain view of marriage as a "right."

The government currently manages marriages. SOOOOOO, they either manage it fairly OOOORRRRRR they get out of it all together. See, it's not so hard to understand.