Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No it was not originally a religious institution:I must admit, I did not read one word of the OP. I have just one question that points to my stance on the whole issue of Marriage; Gay, Straight, or otherwise.
Why is Government in the business of marriage in the first place? It is, originally, a religious institution after all. Libs love to cite "separation of church and state", except when it serves their agenda.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.13 Facts on the History of Marriage
Your lucky that this is the CDZ or I would tell you exactly what I think of you and your bovine excrement.The government should promote marriage and stable families, and should not only through tax breaks but subsidies to promote strong nuclear families. IT does have a very strong interest in such a national policy, especially with financial stress being a primary cause of divorces.
'Gay marriage' is a joke, a red herring, and serves no purpose other than validating a neurotic fetish and mental disorder; allowing them to adopt children is a crime, pure and simple.
Really? Nothing else? You must be either be in a horribly dysfunctional, loveless marriage, or a hermit.A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract
Really? So I should not have been allowed to marry at the age of 50, because my wife , now of 25 years, was beyond her child bearing years at the time? Or, are you trying to say something else about other people?Civil marriage has only one legitimate interest- the welfare of children, which is almost always better with twp parents in the home. Otherwise, the government has no business rewarding the living arrangements of consenting adults.
The federal government does not regulate marriage. For the most part the states do. However, the federal courts have the responsibility of enforcing the constitutional provisions of equal protection under the law and due process. If state law violates those principals, it is proper and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and smack them down which they have done time and again. If you don't believe that, you must also believe that the Supreme Court was out of bounds in striking down laws against interracial marriage. Do you?The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.
Your lucky that this is the CDZ or I would tell you exactly what I think of you and your bovine excrement.The government should promote marriage and stable families, and should not only through tax breaks but subsidies to promote strong nuclear families. IT does have a very strong interest in such a national policy, especially with financial stress being a primary cause of divorces.
'Gay marriage' is a joke, a red herring, and serves no purpose other than validating a neurotic fetish and mental disorder; allowing them to adopt children is a crime, pure and simple.
Listen Troll, maybe you have something intelligent to say in relation to the Op? If not, maybe you would like to just crawl back under the rock where you live.Your lucky that this is the CDZ or I would tell you exactly what I think of you and your bovine excrement.The government should promote marriage and stable families, and should not only through tax breaks but subsidies to promote strong nuclear families. IT does have a very strong interest in such a national policy, especially with financial stress being a primary cause of divorces.
'Gay marriage' is a joke, a red herring, and serves no purpose other than validating a neurotic fetish and mental disorder; allowing them to adopt children is a crime, pure and simple.
Nobody cares what you think, so go ahead. You're just another neo-fascist poseur anyway. Go cheer a cop killing or something with your peers and hold a group masturbation ritual in celebration.
Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/
In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.
Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.
To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”
To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.
sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
'Get the Government Out of Marriage' is a Red Herring
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/get_the_government_out_of_marriage_is_a_red_herring.html#ixzz4EWZja44g
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
If they don't regulate marriage they can't make homo marriage legal and force states to abide by it.The federal government does not regulate marriage. For the most part the states do. However, the federal courts have the responsibility of enforcing the constitutional provisions of equal protection under the law and due process. If state law violates those principals, it is proper and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and smack them down which they have done time and again. If you don't believe that, you must also believe that the Supreme Court was out of bounds in striking down laws against interracial marriage. Do you?The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.
Legally that is all marriage isReally? Nothing else? You must be either be in a horribly dysfunctional, loveless marriage, or a hermit.A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract
But they can and they did through the court by applying constitutional law. Haven't you heard.?If they don't regulate marriage they can't make homo marriage legal and force states to abide by it.The federal government does not regulate marriage. For the most part the states do. However, the federal courts have the responsibility of enforcing the constitutional provisions of equal protection under the law and due process. If state law violates those principals, it is proper and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and smack them down which they have done time and again. If you don't believe that, you must also believe that the Supreme Court was out of bounds in striking down laws against interracial marriage. Do you?The Federal Government should not regulate marriage.
Problem solved.
From the government's perspective you are right, the ceremony is superflous. The marriage license is all that is needed. The government should not care if there is a ceremony or not.The answer is thissealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people
Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples
There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights
which is why the government should no longer recognize marriages performed in religious ceremonies as legal.
If people , ALL people, want there marriages to be sanctioned by the state then the ceremony must be performed by a government official
Quite frankly I think the marriage license should be all that's needed and that the ceremony is superfluous but I understand people's need for such things
You are absolutely right about the yuck factor. I predict that at some point same sex marriage for siblings will be ruled legal. Since they cannot biologically produce children, there is no reason other than the yuck factor to not allow them to marry.It all comes down to the YUCK factorCorrect.The answer is thissealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people
Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples
There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights
Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – contract law that can accommodate two equal adult partners in a committed relationship – same- or opposite-sex.
And that contract is not just between the marrying couple, but involves the state as well, where the state recognizes marriage to be beneficial to society as a whole and acknowledges that benefit accordingly.
For government to not acknowledge the benefit of a same-sex marriage contract predicated solely on bigotry and an unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Indeed, just as the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law, so too are the states prohibited by the 14th Amendment from denying married same-sex couples the benefits of the marriage contract entered into with the state.
For generations, the idea of a black person and a white person marrying and having children of mixed race was considered Yucky
The government responded by banning such unions on a state by state basis
Many today have the same YUCKY feelings about same sex couples. It is yucky to see them holding hands and showing affection in public. That is why they tried to use government to ban such unions.
Or perhaps SP and his mate have those qualities in their relationship regardless of the marriage contract.Really? Nothing else? You must be either be in a horribly dysfunctional, loveless marriage, or a hermit.A marriage contract is nothing but a property contract
You are absolutely right about the yuck factor. I predict that at some point same sex marriage for siblings will be ruled legal. Since they cannot biologically produce children, there is no reason other than the yuck factor to not allow them to marry.It all comes down to the YUCK factorCorrect.The answer is thissealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people
Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples
There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights
Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – contract law that can accommodate two equal adult partners in a committed relationship – same- or opposite-sex.
And that contract is not just between the marrying couple, but involves the state as well, where the state recognizes marriage to be beneficial to society as a whole and acknowledges that benefit accordingly.
For government to not acknowledge the benefit of a same-sex marriage contract predicated solely on bigotry and an unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Indeed, just as the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law, so too are the states prohibited by the 14th Amendment from denying married same-sex couples the benefits of the marriage contract entered into with the state.
For generations, the idea of a black person and a white person marrying and having children of mixed race was considered Yucky
The government responded by banning such unions on a state by state basis
Many today have the same YUCKY feelings about same sex couples. It is yucky to see them holding hands and showing affection in public. That is why they tried to use government to ban such unions.
It doesn't matter whether I know anyone (couple) pushing for it or not. All it takes is one case to make it to the Supreme Court.You are absolutely right about the yuck factor. I predict that at some point same sex marriage for siblings will be ruled legal. Since they cannot biologically produce children, there is no reason other than the yuck factor to not allow them to marry.It all comes down to the YUCK factorCorrect.The answer is thissealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people
Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples
There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights
Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – contract law that can accommodate two equal adult partners in a committed relationship – same- or opposite-sex.
And that contract is not just between the marrying couple, but involves the state as well, where the state recognizes marriage to be beneficial to society as a whole and acknowledges that benefit accordingly.
For government to not acknowledge the benefit of a same-sex marriage contract predicated solely on bigotry and an unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Indeed, just as the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law, so too are the states prohibited by the 14th Amendment from denying married same-sex couples the benefits of the marriage contract entered into with the state.
For generations, the idea of a black person and a white person marrying and having children of mixed race was considered Yucky
The government responded by banning such unions on a state by state basis
Many today have the same YUCKY feelings about same sex couples. It is yucky to see them holding hands and showing affection in public. That is why they tried to use government to ban such unions.
You know of anyone pushing for that?
By that reasoning, mothers and daughter/ fathers and sons will also be able to marry. It's a slippery slope indeed.
Or maybe, just maybe, the government will be able to establish a compelling state interest in not allowing close relative marriage- aside from the issue of birth defects.
From the government's perspective you are right, the ceremony is superflous. The marriage license is all that is needed. The government should not care if there is a ceremony or not.The answer is thissealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.
To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.
In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).
Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,
Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============
My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.
They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.
Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.
So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"
The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people
Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples
There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights
which is why the government should no longer recognize marriages performed in religious ceremonies as legal.
If people , ALL people, want there marriages to be sanctioned by the state then the ceremony must be performed by a government official
Quite frankly I think the marriage license should be all that's needed and that the ceremony is superfluous but I understand people's need for such things
Well, it's not my intention to condemn or support sibling marriage. My point is that issues and arguments that can be made for and against it are different than those for same sex marriage were.. If such a case made it to the federal courts, the state would have to defend their the laws prohibiting sibling marriage by presenting- at minimum- a rational basis for it- and possibly a compelling state interest -although in the case of the latter standard - it's unlikely that they would be held to that level of scrutiny.It doesn't matter whether I know anyone (couple) pushing for it or not. All it takes is one case to make it to the Supreme Court.You are absolutely right about the yuck factor. I predict that at some point same sex marriage for siblings will be ruled legal. Since they cannot biologically produce children, there is no reason other than the yuck factor to not allow them to marry.It all comes down to the YUCK factorCorrect.The answer is this
The GOVERNMENT gives tax breaks and legal rights to married people
Religious fanatics and extreme rightwing haters are trying to prevent those rights to gay couples
There is no other entity than the GOVERNMENT that can enforce those rights
Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts – contract law that can accommodate two equal adult partners in a committed relationship – same- or opposite-sex.
And that contract is not just between the marrying couple, but involves the state as well, where the state recognizes marriage to be beneficial to society as a whole and acknowledges that benefit accordingly.
For government to not acknowledge the benefit of a same-sex marriage contract predicated solely on bigotry and an unwarranted animosity toward gay Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Indeed, just as the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law, so too are the states prohibited by the 14th Amendment from denying married same-sex couples the benefits of the marriage contract entered into with the state.
For generations, the idea of a black person and a white person marrying and having children of mixed race was considered Yucky
The government responded by banning such unions on a state by state basis
Many today have the same YUCKY feelings about same sex couples. It is yucky to see them holding hands and showing affection in public. That is why they tried to use government to ban such unions.
You know of anyone pushing for that?
By that reasoning, mothers and daughter/ fathers and sons will also be able to marry. It's a slippery slope indeed.
Or maybe, just maybe, the government will be able to establish a compelling state interest in not allowing close relative marriage- aside from the issue of birth defects.
Tell me, on what grounds other than the yuck factor as RW puts it, can same sex marriage between adult siblings be denied now that same sex marriages are legal.
