Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Chuz Life]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

Or three or five or seventeen!

 

[JoeMoma]

Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..

Like it or not- you are still wrong.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.

None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.

Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?

If not- why not?

Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.

The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth. However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples. Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage. A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Dear IndependantAce
Because beliefs about this are faith-based, these remain the choice of the people, and can neither be established nor prohibited by Govt.

The most fair way I can find for dealing with beliefs about marriage
is to treat these as CREEDS under the First and 14th Amendments.

Govt cannot be abused either to endorse deny or favor,
exclude or penalize one side's belief over another;
laws cannot contain such a bias as to discriminate for or against one belief or another;
but people affected must consent to the policies and process concerning beliefs
about marriage, about orientation and gender identity, and other faith-based matters.

If they don't agree because of conflicting religious or political beliefs,
not only about the content but also the process and how govt is used,
then their separate policies of choice cannot be imposed on others by force of law.

Because these matters involve personal and spiritual beliefs,
people must remain free to choose without fear of penalty by law
or other threat of discrimination, coercion or exclusion by govt.

Either the people agree and form a consensual neutral policy that doesn't
impose a contested bias one way or another; or else we should agree on
how to separate policies and benefits by state, by party or other means
to prevent from imposing on others through govt in ways
that objectors do not consent to give up their beliefs or rights.

If people consent to compromise their beliefs, for sake of consensus,
that's fine; but it cannot be forced by govt against anyone's will.

 

[heirtothewind]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

Jesus ran around with 12 men.

 

[emilynghiem]

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

Jesus ran around with 12 men.

Dear heirtothewind
Sure they were a "homosexual group".
I have a UU friend who jokes that football teams are all "homosexual."

Clearly just because Jesus ran around with prostitutes and tax collectors.
Doesn't mean it's okay to have sex with them.

(Unless you are a Democrat.
Then it's expected you'd be in bed with tax collectors.
After Republicans have booked up all the prostitutes.)

 

[emilynghiem]

Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..

Like it or not- you are still wrong.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.

None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.

Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?

If not- why not?

Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.

The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth. However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples. Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage. A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.

Dear JoeMoma: Exactly
So this explains the argument to make the government institutions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" only. And take "marriage completely out of govt."

That way, ANYONE can set up a business type contract/partnership for
* household finances
* children's custody
* personal estates
* guardianship, rights, etc.

WITHOUT making any "social statements" at all, endorsing ANY type of "relationship" over another
THROUGH GOVT.

You can declare that on your own, without endorsement or identification by Govt.

Just like communions, baptisms, etc. that are personal dedications NOT endorsed by Govt.
Marriage is private and should be the same way.

All the benefits of "marriage" can be done as Social Contracts
that don't have to specify one relationship or another.

If you want to will and declare your best friend your guardian or co-partner over your estate,
you don't have to be "married" to do that as "husband and wife" or romantic partners.

So you wouldn't be "marrying" your sister, your uncle or son
and you could still have the same benefits as any other couple
permanent sharing a household and expenses as a team.

 

[Dragonlady]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So what you're saying is that all of the churches listed here:

LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are not "real" churches, and that only YOUR beliefs are what God wants.

Give me a break.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

I have never understood why we submit to gov't control of such a private institution. Of course, if you want the benefits you jump thru the hoops.

 

[Dragonlady]

Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..

Like it or not- you are still wrong.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.

None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.

Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?

If not- why not?

Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.

The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth. However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples. Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage. A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.

Dear JoeMoma: Exactly
So this explains the argument to make the government institutions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" only. And take "marriage completely out of govt."

That way, ANYONE can set up a business type contract/partnership for
* household finances
* children's custody
* personal estates
* guardianship, rights, etc.

WITHOUT making any "social statements" at all, endorsing ANY type of "relationship" over another
THROUGH GOVT.

You can declare that on your own, without endorsement or identification by Govt.

Just like communions, baptisms, etc. that are personal dedications NOT endorsed by Govt.
Marriage is private and should be the same way.

All the benefits of "marriage" can be done as Social Contracts
that don't have to specify one relationship or another.

If you want to will and declare your best friend your guardian or co-partner over your estate,
you don't have to be "married" to do that as "husband and wife" or romantic partners.

So you wouldn't be "marrying" your sister, your uncle or son
and you could still have the same benefits as any other couple
permanent sharing a household and expenses as a team.

Unless you are legally married, you cannot have the tax breaks given to those who are married, or family benefits under your health care insurance, nor is your spouse considered "next of kin" in terms of hospital treatment or inheritance, but as you pointed out, in the case of the inheritance or personal care, you can legally appoint your spouse as executor or beneficiary, or power of attorney.

It is the tax breaks, and spousal benefits that are most important and why it is essential for gays to continue to have their unions recognized as legal.

 

[emilynghiem]

Like it or not, the decision on gay marriage will act as a precident for other court challenges such as marriage between close (adult) family members and poligamy..

Like it or not- you are still wrong.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws and regulations 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and up to Obergefell.

None of them are precedent for sibling marriage or polygamy.

Sibling marriage is just as illegal today as it was before Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

The question is- do you believe you have a right to marry your brother?

If not- why not?

Those cases set precedents that can be used in a future case to establish gay sibling marriage in that many of the arguments that could be used against gay sibling marriage have already played out in court and have been debunked.

The biggest hurdle for marriage of siblings is probably the risk of problems with recessive traits and childbirth. However, since gay couples don't conceive children together, that argument does not hold for gay sibling couples. Thus, the gay marriage victory in court has paved the way for gay sibling marriage. A court precedent does not have to be the exact same case, it can be a similar case.

Dear JoeMoma: Exactly
So this explains the argument to make the government institutions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" only. And take "marriage completely out of govt."

That way, ANYONE can set up a business type contract/partnership for
* household finances
* children's custody
* personal estates
* guardianship, rights, etc.

WITHOUT making any "social statements" at all, endorsing ANY type of "relationship" over another
THROUGH GOVT.

You can declare that on your own, without endorsement or identification by Govt.

Just like communions, baptisms, etc. that are personal dedications NOT endorsed by Govt.
Marriage is private and should be the same way.

All the benefits of "marriage" can be done as Social Contracts
that don't have to specify one relationship or another.

If you want to will and declare your best friend your guardian or co-partner over your estate,
you don't have to be "married" to do that as "husband and wife" or romantic partners.

So you wouldn't be "marrying" your sister, your uncle or son
and you could still have the same benefits as any other couple
permanent sharing a household and expenses as a team.

Unless you are legally married, you cannot have the tax breaks given to those who are married, or family benefits under your health care insurance, nor is your spouse considered "next of kin" in terms of hospital treatment or inheritance, but as you pointed out, in the case of the inheritance or personal care, you can legally appoint your spouse as executor or beneficiary, or power of attorney.

It is the tax breaks, and spousal benefits that are most important and why it is essential for gays to continue to have their unions recognized as legal.

Right Dragonlady
And THAT'S ANOTHER REASON the "tax breaks"
should not be tied to marriage. Get marriage out of govt.

Agree that the "tax breaks" are for sharing expenses as a unit like a household or guardianship for children, estates ,etc.

Businesses get tax breaks for expenditures as an entity.
And those partners in corporations DON'T have to be "married" to each other to get them!

EXACTLY Dragonlady
Make it SECULAR and CIVIL contracts only, just like business, and NO personal or social matters like "who you are in love with" or "who is your spiritual soul mate" need to be micromanaged or "declared" by govt.

If you are going to 'separate church and state' then SEPARATE it.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

If you don't want church and faith based opinions to be mixed in with
govt policy, then don't drag them into govt in the first place. Keep it SECULAR.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So what you're saying is that all of the churches listed here:

LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are not "real" churches, and that only YOUR beliefs are what God wants.

Give me a break.

There are churches that accept gays. There are religions which welcome them.

But the actions of a church or religion has no bearing on our laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So what you're saying is that all of the churches listed here:

LGBT-affirming Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are not "real" churches, and that only YOUR beliefs are what God wants.

Give me a break.

Yes and no, Dragonlady and Dale Smith
1. for govt/legal reasons, it doesn't matter which churches which people consider real or not. That's internal. As long as you meet the legal requirements that's all that's required to be recognized legally. the religious and spiritual requirements are not the business of govt to regulate.
I'm sure there are JW and other denominations who will say the Christians are all false prophets, so none, zero of the Christian/Catholic churches would pass as real by their opinions.

2. As for the REAL church, by the time we have CONSENSUS on truth and justice, everyone on the planet is going to be called out on one thing or another. Nobody is perfect and nobody has claim to the universal truth and authority except where we ALL agree in unity.

And all errors and wrongs will be corrected. So it doesn't matter so much which people are wrong on which things, but what matters most is that we agree to receive one another, to forgive, accept and correct things for the sake of restoring good faith and healthy relationships for a sustainable society. That will be the REAL church, the unity of all people coming together in the spirit of truth, justice and lasting peace for all humanity.

So all churches/groups WILL be counted and included in the process.

In that, we will all find out how we are equally right and equally wrong, it will come out pretty even. Each person/group will be right on some things and miss the mark on others where someone else got that part right!

So we help each other, as equal neighbors in Christ, to remove the beams and splinters from each other's eyes without judging one another, just correcting things together.

So in this way, we collectively make ourselves "whole" or "perfect" even as our "heavenly father is perfect."

It will take all of us to cover for the shortcomings of the other person, and together we will get it right. As best can be expected of imperfect human beings anyway!

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

Dear Skylar:
IndependantAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the "same as a human being" ?

NO, not even close.
Personhood means legally only. But doesn't make them the SAME.

That's close to what IndependantAce is saying.
Just because a couple has LEGAL status does NOT make it "the SAME" as marriage in the context that IndependantAce is talking about.

So that "legal status" that YOU are talking about,
is NOT what IndependantAce means.

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

Dear Skylar:
@IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"

NO. Personhood means legally only.

So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.

Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.

....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Then show us one state law that requires that a married couple procreate....or be able to procreate in order to married.

Dear Skylar:
@IndependentAce is NOT talking about "civil union" marriage,
but talking about the SACRAMENT of marriage as a SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL institution.

You are talking about LEGAL definition, which is DIFFERENT.

For example,
by LEGAL definitions a "Corporation is a PERSON" but not a Baby in the womb not viable yet.

Is a CORPORATION the 'same as a human being"

NO. Personhood means legally only.

So that "legal status" is NOT what @IndependentAce is talking about.

Ace is talking about legal definitions. Specifically, he's proposing that the State decide if gays and lesbians can be married.

....Unless you're arguing that a State government should be allowed to define spiritual definitions.

Skylar Then you and IndependantAce need to specify and agree WHICH context you are talking about.

If Marriage were kept in private institutions likes churches or whatever social group the members affiliate with, then ANYONE can practice your "right to marriage" there just like in religious free exercise that govt cannot dictate.

Then we should all agree to keep the SECULAR part in govt only for the CIVIL laws, unions, partnerships, contracts, etc.

So where IndependantAce is wrong, is that it is wrong to endorse traditional marriages through the govt and not other beliefs about marriage. By that token, it is equally WRONG to endorse same sex marriages through govt where the people of that state do not believe in or agree to endorse that through public institution because it violates their beliefs!

That's where the inconsistency is.

If marriage is practiced independently through religion or other groups/communities, then NOBODY can deny or restrict your right to practice your own beliefs, especially not govt!

The civil union part of the contract can be through govt, but it has to remain secular and neutral. If it has any of these terms that the public does not consent to, that's no longer neutral but biased and faith based.

So you are BOTH right that Govt should NOT BE designating or regulating anything by spiritual values.

This is why Constitutionalists argue to keep marriage out of govt in order to be consistent and respect equal religious freedom!

 

[saveliberty]

If being gay isn't a choice, is gay marriage a choice?

 

[JoeMoma]

If being gay isn't a choice, is gay marriage a choice?

I have heard of people who come out as being gay after marrying (heterosexually) and having children. So apparently heterosexual marriage was a choice for them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

I agree totally, but people are hammering away to indulge homosexuals on this, almost a tsunami FOR homosexual marriage. I DO NOT understand nor do I agree with the logic supporting gay marriage, I just don't understand it. Much like the support for Donald Trump. He is damned popular in the much the same vein, and that goes to the easily manipulated fickle and inexplicable nature of the American voter. PT Barnum said : YOU can fool most of the people some of the time, you cant can't fool all the people all the time.

Actually, it’s very easy to understand.

First, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’; there is only one marriage law in each of the states, contract law that can accommodate two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Second, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying US citizens residing in the states from accessing state laws for no other reason than who they are, in this case denying same-sex couples access to marriage contract law because they are gay.

Third, denying gay Americans access to marriage law they are eligible to participate in solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

And last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits the states from violating the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans applies only to government, not private religious entities such as churches.

Now you understand.

 

[saveliberty]

I understand government high jacked a religiously protected right and crossed the separation boundary.