@wrz --"the right to marry whomever they choose"Nope.1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens.
Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal
freedoms.-- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily
reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban, even though they've
had gay marriage for years now. 2. adult incest (adult siblings,
adult parent/children) -- it's illegal in every state, again because of
public safety. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion
amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is
very high (roughly 30-40%). -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent
court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and
uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of
giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts.
Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't
be removed. 4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any
special risk to public safety.The courts can easily distinguish
between these different practices -- even if you can't.
"Marriage" has always occurred outside of religions, as well as within
them."Legal Marriage" is a contract between 2 people and the
State, which MAY be executed by a religious officiant, and MAY be considered a
part of the 2 peoples' religions.The small number of Gays
wanting to marry will hurt or change no one. Churches organized blocking
of marriage equality MAINLY because they are concerned that their own members or
children will want their church to marry them in the future.Anyone
suggesting that "gays will be suing the X church to marry them" needs to
read up on the subject of paranoia and the subject of false accusations
@Allen:"I would like to hear rational reasons why government is
involved with marriage at all."The government has a say in
marriage because there are certain cases where the government thinks, in
it's infinite wisdom, marriages should be denied... such as close
relatives, polygamists, human/pet, children, etc. Why the government would deny
civil rights to these groups and not the aberrant gay marriage is an enigma.
Everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose without government
interference... such as has now been granted homosexuals.
@amazondocThanks for your comments!"Today,
government is involved with marriage because marriage conveys hundreds and
hundreds of legal and financial benefits to married couples."And
in so doing, government is showing discrimination against singles. Much better,
I think, for government to convey those benefits via civil unions, without
concern whether people are married or not, and not get involved in the emotional
problems of defining marriage.
Are our decisions good or bad? Right, or wrong?To know without the
use of an opinion. Answer this question:Is our country flourishing,
and prosperous,--or is it decaying?
@Allen --"why government is involved with marriage at
all."The first officially recorded marriages in Western
civilization took place in the ancient Roman society -- and they were CIVIL
marriages, not religious ones.In history, government has been just
as involved in marriage as religion has. Marriage wasn't even considered a
sacrament by the Christian church until the Middle Ages -- and churches only
took over recording marriages from the government when the government became too
weak to do so. In Jesus' own time, marriage was a private event that
didn't require special civil OR religious ceremonies to accomplish.Today, government is involved with marriage because marriage conveys
hundreds and hundreds of legal and financial benefits to married couples.@very concerned --"I have a hard time believing in a god
who would send us to earth, prohibit us from a certain behavior, and then make
it impossible to resist that behavior."Many Christians and Jews
SUPPORT gay marriage. Many Christian and Jewish denominations are happy to
perform gay weddings.They have no trouble reconciling their
religious beliefs with support for gay rights. And guess what -- their religious
beliefs are every bit as valid as yours.
Having governments at any level regulate marriage is as illogical as having
governments at any level regulate baptism.Government = social
unionsSocial groups = marriage
Government = social unionsSocial groups = marriage"We need
less hysteria, and more rational thought."I would like to hear
rational reasons why government is involved with marriage at all.
As I've said in the past, homosexuality should be defined by mainly a
behavior. I can see how one can have same-sex attraction, but I do not believe
it is desirable nor uncontrollable. I have a hard time believing in a god who
would send us to earth, prohibit us from a certain behavior, and then make it
impossible to resist that behavior. Having read the 14th amendment,
I sincerely doubt those who wrote it could have imagined it to cover
Christian 25-8, then I assume you are also against equal rights for women since
biologically they cannot be the same?
Ah, to be alive during a time when the bonds of religious oppression are
loosened. There is more to do and IMVHO it will get done. What a great secular
and democratic republic we live in.
In a free, and prosperous society, laws, and rulings are made on moral
values.Is this Supreme Court ruling based on moral values?Take away moral values, and laws become corrupted, and chokes a
civilization.Our people have become confused, and argumentative with
defining the word "moral", and our country is decaying, because of
it.It becomes our duty to speak out when rulings become warped. If
not for speaking out, we'd still be a part of England.
Not to re-hash old discussions, but the seemngly.silly idea that gay activists
want special treatment is based on history. The fourteenth ammendment was
cited regularly by champions of gay rights. Look at the history of the
fourteenth ammendment and the civil rights battles that led to results such as
affirmative action. Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that
those professing to only want equal rights actually want to be treated equally.
Once that is achieved, they lose their agenda and will have to create a new
agenda. Need to be clear- This is specific to activists, not the gay
community.Doma decision was really a victory for justice and rights
of states to define marriage as the see fit, The prop 8 non-decision
was disgraceful as California is the one state that doesn't have this
We saw this coming. I'm ok with equal rights for gays, except calling it
marriage. Christians believing that gay marriage is ordained of God needs to
refer to the Bible. It's a hard subject because it involves such high
emotions, but God doesn't change his feelings on the matter.
ClarkHippo:Some people believe this about civil rights, and some
think it will snow in Texas tomorrow.
What really comes next is the demand for government funded research to allow
same-sex couples have their own children that are really genetically both the
parents' children, and state funded in vetro for same-sex female couples,
and state paid surrogates for same-sex male couples in the mean time. After all, same-sex couples will never be equal to heterosexual couples until
they are able to bear children in these unions.
@aislanderNo the curse still stands. No litigant is forced to file
in state court if there is a federal question. Any challenge on equal protection
grounds would be considered a federal question. Any law can be questioned on
equal protection grounds. Therefore, jurisdiction would lie in the federal
district court and standing to defend would not exist. Hence, default judgement
for the plaintiff.
I do hope this Supreme court and the Obama administration realize that they are
pushing the U S into the same category as Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember the
Biblical historical results. There is always a price to pay for sin
to avoid federalism as most seem to need, good thing there are 50 states....to
assume everyone in the usa should be protected equally under the law one must
accept the fact that there are at least two camps of thought....a stand against
conflicts both: an automatic unequality of one,,,,thus unlawful. one would be
guilty of unequal unlawful to all parties......the law is a personal, social,
spiritual thing.....as much as hetero people have accused same sex people for
whatever reason, they still have their way, say and ability to be.....the secret
is to be confident in the final energy of each individual....why would any
person withhold, stop, create harm for another...this....my friends...is the
only law that will be judged.....all other man made laws are for the folly of
mankind seeking the opposite of live.....E V I L.
It's a sad commentary about how far gone our society/culture is when we
have forgotten the real purpose of marriage. I see no comments about it on this
or any other discussion boards - gays and supporters think it's all about
liberty and so-called equality. So-called gay marriage just puts us futher out
into the weeds.
@ ClarkHippo: I have extensive experience in discrimination law.
Your questions sound like slippery slope red-herrings. Please believe that gay
people want only what they say they want...equality, nothing more, nothing less.
I would hope that you do not have a problem with gay citizens having equal
treatment under civil law. Until such time as gay people are actually granted
something that actually substantiates your fears, celebrate that we are getting
closer to the equal treatment under civil law that our constitution promises to
all citizens.Rest assured, no church will ever be required to marry
anyone when they do not wish to do so. Our separation of church and state is
strong and actually being strengthened by these same sex developments. Consider
that until my state approved same sex marriage, my Christian church, which
supports gay marriage was unable to perform them. Now it can. Thus, from our
perspective, our religious liberty was restricted until the ability to marry
same sex couples was granted. But any churches that disapprove of gay marriages
certainly don't have to perform them. And don't be fooled by examples
outside the USA...they don't have the same constitution!
@BYUtah Fan:Actually you're not quite correct on the
"curse". The Calif State Supreme Court DID grant standing, so citizen
groups can qualify to defend state law, but only up through the State Supreme
Court. The US Supreme court has never granted standing to citizens to defend a
state law before the SCOTUS, and wasn't about to start now.
@ CHS 85Excellent observation.
@Clark --"#1 - How soon before gay and lesbian couples start
suing churches, demanding to be married in places like a Catholic Cathedral or
LDS temple?"-- Just as soon as non-Catholics or non-LDS members start
sueing to be married in those same places."#2 - How soon before
it becomes a "hate crime" to simply say, "I disagree with the gay
lifestyle?""-- Just as soon as it becomes a hate crime to simply
say "I disagree with the Republican lifestyle"."#3 - How
soon before social workers and adoption agencies, fearful of being labeled
"homophobic" start giving special (not equal, but special) consideration
to gays and lesbians wanting to adopt or be foster parents?"-- the
National Association of Social Workers already SUPPORTS gay marriage, so there
is not much chance of them being homophobic on a widespread level.We
need less hysteria, and more rational thought. Cmon, people, this is NOT the end
of the world.
@NuschlerI didn't realize Barack Obama was on the Supreme
Before I begin this comment, I should say that I am very conservative. However,
I am convinced that the court got the DOMA ruling correct while being very
cowardly on the Prop 8 question. DOMA is a federal law that essentially trumps
State law. Marriage is one area where state law has always held sway and should
continue to. While I might agree with the general intent of the law, the federal
government has no business sticking its nose into traditionally state
jurisdiction. On Prop 8 the court ducked the issue. They have also cursed
California in a way that I believe few have recognized. The court, by ruling
that private citizen groups cannot defend a initiative that was passed by the
people, has handed the California state government a veto over any state
initiative. The state government need merely refuse to defend the law and any
challenge to it will succeed since no one else has the standing to defend it.
That puts all initiatives at the whim of the party in power. So, gay
Californians, while this might be a short term victory, it might very well come
back to bite you.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay
marriage." Barack Obama Nov 1, 2008
I would like to ask some questions.#1 - How soon before gay and
lesbian couples start suing churches, demanding to be married in places like a
Catholic Cathedral or LDS temple?#2 - How soon before it becomes a
"hate crime" to simply say, "I disagree with the gay
lifestyle?"#3 - How soon before social workers and adoption
agencies, fearful of being labeled "homophobic" start giving special
(not equal, but special) consideration to gays and lesbians wanting to adopt or
be foster parents? Gays, lesbians and their supporters are
wonderful about giving lip service to the word "equality" but equality
means being exactly the same as everyone else, and who really wants that when
you can be a little bit more? Possibly, a lot more?