The Case For Marriage Equality

[Denny347]

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.

C'mon Ryan, it's not based on anti-religion. Amazingly enough I know some who are quite religious while wanting to marry same sex partners. I do believe that churches should not be forced to perform ANY ceremonies. There are lots of non-religious ways to get married. Bigamy is a BS law. It is based only on religious objections.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

So, you insist that they manage it according to your preference, rather than the legislature's or People's preference? And why is that "fair."

 

[rambone]

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.

Don't you think its a bit tenuous to argue that rights change depending on geography, time, and regulations?

I prefer the idea that rights are inherent, universal, unchanging, and inalienable. A person today inherently has the same rights as a person 100 years ago, with a different level of infringement on those rights. Those rights should include the uninfringed ability to perform religious rites, make vows, and form private contracts we know as "marriage."

If rights change every time congress convenes, then we must conclude that the ritual of marriage is not a right for anyone, straight or gay, it is merely a state privilege. And it follows that all the straight couples who were denied marriage a century ago because of nationality, age, and health could not have had their rights violated, by definition. Their rights had not been invented yet.

I think there is something inherently wrong with that argument.

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.

I agree with you on that. The Feds have no business in the matter.

If there is to be an infringement on the right to marry, it can only constitutionally exist at the State level. But it will always be an infringement IMO.

 

[CarmelHP]

Don't you think its a bit tenuous to argue that rights change depending on geography, time, and regulations?

I prefer the idea that rights are inherent, universal, unchanging, and inalienable. A person today inherently has the same rights as a person 100 years ago, with a different level of infringement on those rights. Those rights should include the uninfringed ability to perform religious rites, make vows, and form private contracts we know as "marriage."

If rights change every time congress convenes, then we must conclude that the ritual of marriage is not a right for anyone, straight or gay, it is merely a state privilege. And it follows that all the straight couples who were denied marriage a century ago because of nationality, age, and health could not have had their rights violated, by definition. Their rights had not been invented yet.

I think there is something inherently wrong with that argument.

A hundred years ago then you could have probably married a 10 or 12 year old in most states, even 50 years ago. Changing opinions and fashions are the province of the legislature. There is no "right" to marry absolutely anyone you choice, just like a "right to counsel" doesn't mean a right to whatever counsel you should want. That has never existed anywhere at all. Defining marriage is a matter left to the states through the People, with some limits in those areas in which states have delegated powers to the federal government, such as the Reconstruction Amendments prohibition on racial classifications as incidents and badges of slavery.

I agree with you on that. The Feds have no business in the matter.

If there is to be an infringement on the right to marry, it can only constitutionally exist at the State level. But it will always be an infringement IMO.

Fair enough.

 

[Denny347]

So, you insist that they manage it according to your preference, rather than the legislature's or People's preference? And why is that "fair."

Not mine, I hardly matter in all this.

 

[Indy317]

C'mon Ryan, it's not based on anti-religion. Amazingly enough I know some who are quite religious while wanting to marry same sex partners. I do believe that churches should not be forced to perform ANY ceremonies. There are lots of non-religious ways to get married. Bigamy is a BS law. It is based only on religious objections.

You know there are people out there who never can never stop at just obtaining equality. For some people, they want to not only have equality, they want to force others to accept the morals and values they believe in. I see it on both sides, that tiny group of radicals that can't just leave their morals and values at their property line, or the property line of their church. They demand that even if one doesn't agree with their line of thinking, they be forced to accept it, and deal with it.

Here are recent cases that deal with this issue. Note a church is being forced to accept something it doesn't agree with. Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News If a church has to be forced to offer their property to gay couples, do we really think the same government officials will let them turn away gay marriages?

I believe this "You must conform to my beliefs" will seriously hurt this country. I don't necessarily disagree with civil rights and stuff, but eventually we go down the path of everything and anything being a civil right: Race, ethnic background, religion, firearm ownership (take your guns to work law), weight, disability, etc.. Instead of a live and let live society, we are slowing becoming a "YOU MUST DO THIS!" type of society, which will only hurt us in the long run as more and more people will just toss in the towel and say "screw it."

I can't even fathom being a small business owner in this country. Between taxes, regulations, constant threats of lawsuits, etc., I don't see how people do it.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

If the government wasn't in the business of doling out benefits for doing this or that, and was equal to all, there wouldn't be this conversation.

This is issue is much about money and adding even more people to the social security rolls AND the legitimizing of homosexuality, not about equality of marriage.

All of this could have been accomplished with civil unions and which was rejected.

 

[Yes]

I don't know what all this BS about churches being forced to marry certain people is. Where I grew up in NYC, even if you are a dude marrying a chick, it's nearly impossible to get any church that isn't a total dump to marry you, and if you do convince them, you have to pay enormous sums (>$25k). You also have to prove that you both have gone to mass every sunday for many years. So basically, where I'm from, getting married in a church is for the insanely rich and well-connected, and is quite frankly pretty rare. Most people do it in their backyard, at a catering hall, or simply at a judge's office.

And another thing: why would any sane person, gay or straight, want to get married in a place famous the world-over for raping children? That seems unbelievably dumb to me.

 

[Echelon]

I swear.... we just had a 40+ page thread about this subject.
Must have gotten censored, since it's gone now.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I swear.... we just had a 40+ page thread about this subject.
Must have gotten censored, since it's gone now.

Yeah, it got memory holed, I checked. I'm still worn out from that thing.

 

[arthrimus]

Yeah, it got memory holed, I checked. I'm still worn out from that thing.

Not surprising, it was dominated by stupidity.