I agree that government should not be defining marriage. I also agree that states should be left to decide for themselves. That's how this experiment was meant to work. Natural selection at its finest.Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Hi ding Yes and no.
1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.
2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.
Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?
Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)
BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.
Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.
In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.
So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.
Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones