US Appeals Court rules gay marriage bans in WI and IN unconstitutional.

[rvb]

They can have a religious or non religious marriage if they can find someone to do it. And they have been able to for many years. What is in question is whether the state has to recognize it.

then why are we discussing the courts over-turning a "ban" on marriage? I thought IN law made it illegal to perform a same-sex wedding?

Indiana's gay marriage debate highlights possible crimes

-rvb

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

They can have a religious or non religious marriage if they can find someone to do it. And they have been able to for many years. What is in question is whether the state has to recognize it.

Religious considerations aside, why wouldn't the state recognize it? Citizens are supposed to be offered equal consideration under the law, so if you were to give tax incentives to some why not others?

If the state is not willing to recognize gay marriage, it should not recognize any marriage. And in turn there would no longer be any state benefit to being married.

 

[ModernGunner]

And, as predicted, headed to SCOTUS, it appears...

Don't care one way or another, really. But there is NO guaranteed 'right to be homosexual' (or heterosexual, though that's nature's 'order') in the Constitution. So, it should simply fall to the States, and the vote of the people of the States, to decide. As it is with other aspects of marriage law.

Nor should anyone be able to sue because some baker didn't want to bake them a cake. So, go somewhere else and get your cake, stupid.

If we think about it, this whole issue began due to things like insurance benefits and inheritance, etc. Just change those, and the whole issue becomes irrelevant.

 

[steveh_131]

Citizens are supposed to be offered equal consideration under the law, so if you were to give tax incentives to some why not others?

Even if I did agree that the feds should provide such "equal consideration", it technically already exists. Gays have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us do.

I agree wholeheartedly that the state sponsored marital institution, and all associated government benefits, should be abolished entirely (at the state level).

But if it must exist, it should remain a state matter.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

then why are we discussing the courts over-turning a "ban" on marriage? I thought IN law made it illegal to perform a same-sex wedding?

Indiana's gay marriage debate highlights possible crimes

-rvb

IN had/has a ban on registering same sex marriages. Two (or more) people can go in front of (insert name of religious or non religious person) and get hitched, that marriage is not recognized by the state of IN. Heck they can just hold hands and jump over a broom no other person needed. They would be married, but not a legally recognized one. Same as if a same sex couple went out of state to a state that recognizes same sex marriage, they would be legally married and recognized by the state that they were married in(along with some others) but that marriage wouldn't be recognized by IN.

Religious considerations aside, why wouldn't the state recognize it? Citizens are supposed to be offered equal consideration under the law, so if you were to give tax incentives to some why not others?

If the state is not willing to recognize gay marriage, it should not recognize any marriage. And in turn there would no longer be any state benefit to being married.

It could be argued and it is that they do offer equal consideration under the law. Can a gay man and a lesbian get married? Can two straight men or women get married? The law makes no distinction on sexual preference, just that it has to be one man and one woman. People get married for many reasons other than love.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

Even if I did agree that the feds should provide such "equal consideration", it technically already exists. Gays have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us do.

I agree wholeheartedly that the state sponsored marital institution, and all associated government benefits, should be abolished entirely (at the state level).

But if it must exist, it should remain a state matter.

I don't disagree but if thats the case, are we not, as usual, focusing on the wrong problem? As with many things, this could all be cleared up by removing government entitlements from the equation.


I argue that if must exist, we should play nice 'lest it be one of our rights on the chopping block in the future.

 

[88GT]

Which is more important, the so-called "rights of the state" or the Rights of the individuals? I do not see this as a loss in any way, except for the opponents of the freedom to marry.

Are they really as mutually exclusive as you would have us believe? I think not. The state's rights are the people's rights. And while I will oppose in theoretical academic discussion any limitation on the free exercise of the individual's pursuit of happiness (provided it does not use force against another), I can accept the current limitation of our present form of government, namely that it is republican, not libertarian. To deprive the people the power to govern themselves is equally as wrong as an overly-burdensome and too-powerful federal government.

Have the courts never revisited an issue and ruled differently?

Sure, they have. But that only proves one thing: courts operate on public opinion, not pure Constitutionality.

Even if I did agree that the feds should provide such "equal consideration", it technically already exists. Gays have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us do.

I agree wholeheartedly that the state sponsored marital institution, and all associated government benefits, should be abolished entirely (at the state level).

But if it must exist, it should remain a state matter.

I'd just like to repeat this. There is no discrimination. Gays are not banned from marrying because they are gay. It is not the who, it is the what.

On a side note: I am torn on the abolishment of all government "benefits." I do not relish having to prove my common law right to inherit my husband's estate upon his passing.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't disagree but if thats the case, are we not, as usual, focusing on the wrong problem? As with many things, this could all be cleared up by removing government entitlements from the equation.

Yes, it is absolutely the wrong problem to be focusing on.

But the constant federal intrusion into state matters is a more important problem.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

It could be argued and it is that they do offer equal consideration under the law. Can a gay man and a lesbian get married? Can two straight men or women get married? The law makes no distinction on sexual preference, just that it has to be one man and one woman. People get married for many reasons other than love.

If Tim wants the share the mutual benefits of marriage with Joe, he isn't going to marry Sally to do it though. The point is that you should be able to marry whomever you want, for whatever reason. If the government (state or federal) is going to incentivize marriage it should not limit to one group or another, especially on the premise of religion. As supporters of the 2nd amendment we constantly argue that others cannot pick and choose which portions of the constitution they support. It is all or nothing.

If for no other reason than everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we should not regulate others individual business. And regardless of whether or not you believe it should be a state or federal decision, all of this is deeply rooted in religion. The first amendment guarantees all of us that the government will govern without religious influence. Period.

 

[steveh_131]

On a side note: I am torn on the abolishment of all government "benefits." I do not relish having to prove my common law right to inherit my husband's estate upon his passing.

Handling legal matters is a bother, I agree with you on that. But I see no reason why this could not be handled by a simple contract between a couple at the time of marriage.

 

[steveh_131]

The first amendment guarantees all of us that the government will govern without religious influence. Period.

It most certainly does not. It will govern with the influence of the people, people who may or may not be religious.

 

[88GT]

Handling legal matters is a bother, I agree with you on that. But I see no reason why this could not be handled by a simple contract between a couple at the time of marriage.

Concur. I just question the ability of a single contract to cover all the common law spousal privileges currently protected by the state-sanctioned marriage. But if pressed, I'd be willing to risk it.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

It most certainly does not. It will govern with the influence of the people, people who may or may not be religious.

I'm quite certain you'd feel differently about that if another religious group voted away something important to you.

 

[88GT]

I'm quite certain you'd feel differently about that if another religious group voted away something important to you.

Nobody likes to have rights infringed, regardless of the source. But an honest person understands the right of the people to govern themselves, which necessarily comes with the risk that the state in which one lives is going to pass some truly abhorrent legislation.

So while I may not be thrilled with Indiana recognizing gay marriage, I understand the people have the right to decide such. Where I will draw the line, is the federal intrusion. And lest you think I am one of those who decides the righteousness of legislation based on its agreement with my personal stance, I absolutely, vehemently, adamantly oppose a federal law, regulation, or Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

Nobody likes to have rights infringed, regardless of the source. But an honest person understands the right of the people to govern themselves, which necessarily comes with the risk that the state in which one lives is going to pass some truly abhorrent legislation.

I want to agree with your statement but I think it is short-sighted to look at anything in such black and white terms. At the risk of beating an already badly bruised horse, that logic applied to the civil rights movement and women's sufferage would have prolonged both by many, many more years.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If Tim wants the share the mutual benefits of marriage with Joe, he isn't going to marry Sally to do it though. The point is that you should be able to marry whomever you want, for whatever reason. If the government (state or federal) is going to incentivize marriage it should not limit to one group or another, especially on the premise of religion.

If for no other reason than everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we should not regulate others individual business. And regardless of whether or not you believe it should be a state or federal decision, all of this is deeply rooted in religion. The first amendment guarantees all of us that the government will govern without religious influence. Period.

If Tim wants to share the mutual benefits of marriage with Kate Upton, he isn't going to marry Rosanne Barr to do it either. The point I made was that the law is equal. If the point that you wanted to make is that anyone should be able to marry whomever they want, why did you argue that it was unequal consideration? The govt limits it to quite a few groups, for instance it limits it to groups of 2, it also limits it to groups that it doesn't feel are too closely related, it also limits it to groups that they feel are old enough, some also limit it to groups that are syphilis and/or rubella free. I'm sure I could come up with more if you would like. Do you believe some or all of those limits should be repealed? If so which ones and why, and/or why not if you feel any/all of them shouldn't be.

And can you point out where in the 1st Amendment that is? I seem to have missed it.

 

[Kart29]

all of this is deeply rooted in religion.

Very much so.

The first amendment guarantees all of us that the government will govern without religious influence. Period.

No it doesn't. Not even close.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

Ok I'll humor you, how do you interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

 

[steveh_131]

I'm quite certain you'd feel differently about that if another religious group voted away something important to you.

I would oppose it at the local or state level, not encourage federal involvement.

 

[Kart29]

Ok I'll humor you, how do you interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

I don't think I could simplify it any more. Does refusing to issue licenses to a homosexual couple establish a state religion? No. Does it prohibit the free exercise of a religion? No. Is the State of Indiana the US. Congress? No. Pretty simple.

Of course a brazillion pages of case history and legal opinions would probably insist it means something completely different from what it says. But that's another issue.