Marriage in the Context of US Constitution

[Cenotaph]

This addresses everything:

• The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them
• The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states
• The idea that marriage is or isn't a right
• Etc

Thoughts, opinions?

Try to keep it civil...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them[…]The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states

The consistent application of equal protection doctrine compels the states to allow same-sex couples equal access to marriage law. With regard to Perry v. Brown (‘prop 8’), for example, the state of California failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to disallow same-sex couples equal protection of the law and failed to provide evidence in support of its opposition.

As in any court of law, it’s only a matter of what can be objectively proven, not a matter of subjective opinion.

The idea that marriage is or isn't a right

It’s settled law that marriage is a fundamental right, in the context of the right to privacy. This is why such issues as procreation and whether one ‘chooses’ to be gay or not are irrelevant.

 

[Cenotaph]

I'm honestly surprised by the lack of participation in this thread... I would expect everyone would be all over this.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm honestly surprised by the lack of participation in this thread... I would expect everyone would be all over this.

I think those who typically oppose gay marriage have been slapped silly on too many threads.

Either that or they haven't noticed this one.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, its regulation is a function of the states.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm honestly surprised by the lack of participation in this thread... I would expect everyone would be all over this.

They've been all over this, repeatedly. Unfortunately, this topic tends to degenerate into a name-calling contest among a very few participants. I personally check out when that stage is reached.

 

[Cenotaph]

I'm honestly surprised by the lack of participation in this thread... I would expect everyone would be all over this.

They've been all over this, repeatedly. Unfortunately, this topic tends to degenerate into a name-calling contest among a very few participants. I personally check out when that stage is reached.

I've noticed that this happens a lot on this forum.

 

[Moonglow]

we must remember that the daily philosophy an mindset of Americans 250 years ago was and is not the same as today. I believe you have people that lived 250 years ago that was under the idea thatonly a preist could marry you, peer pressure from society would not allow certain things to happen, ie; interracial partners, same sex, why even protestants and catholics did not marry.
The Constitution holds no rules on marriage. I believe at the time of the FF the church controlled that destiny, why you did not even need a license.
The states did not legislate marriage until the early 1800's, so they really didn't think it was thier area to manage.
I believe the set up we have today by the govt. is a system which allows the state to record and license the activity, they do not marry you. They(the state) should not have the right to refuse marrige to anyone that wants it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This addresses everything:

• The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them
• The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states
• The idea that marriage is or isn't a right
• Etc

Thoughts, opinions?

Try to keep it civil...

Your first mistake is using the term "marriage", use of that term opens the thread to deflection with statements that same-sex couples can be "married" just that it is not recognized by the state. "Marriage" effectively exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is a status that exists between individuals and is recognized by they selected religious organization. Technically speaking, same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and if they don't complete (or do not have access to Civil Marriage) then they are "married" just not legally.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is the context of these discussions, is the legal status entered into by two individuals which is recognized by the government establishing a family relationship where one did not exist before. Just as Religious Marriage can exist outside the context of Civil Marriage, Civil Marriage can exist outside the context of religion.


>>>>

 

[code1211]

This addresses everything:

• The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them
• The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states
• The idea that marriage is or isn't a right
• Etc

Thoughts, opinions?

Try to keep it civil...

Marriage does not exist as a topic in the US Constitution except under the very broad States Rights Clause.

In this way, it is exactly like Abortion.

 

[Cenotaph]

This addresses everything:

• The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them
• The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states
• The idea that marriage is or isn't a right
• Etc

Thoughts, opinions?

Try to keep it civil...

Your first mistake is using the term "marriage", use of that term opens the thread to deflection with statements that same-sex couples can be "married" just that it is not recognized by the state. "Marriage" effectively exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is a status that exists between individuals and is recognized by they selected religious organization. Technically speaking, same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and if they don't complete (or do not have access to Civil Marriage) then they are "married" just not legally.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is the context of these discussions, is the legal status entered into by two individuals which is recognized by the government establishing a family relationship where one did not exist before. Just as Religious Marriage can exist outside the context of Civil Marriage, Civil Marriage can exist outside the context of religion.


>>>>

I'll be sure to use the term "civil marriage" from now on when regarding this issue. You are right in correcting me.

EDIT: So, what is your position on the issues I addressed in the bullets?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Since the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, its regulation is a function of the states.

Please don't tell me you're going to support this with Tenther BS.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The requirement for legal recognition of marriage originated in 16th century Europe, as a means to prevent young people from marrying without the consent of their families. In Colonial America, marriages were recorded, but not regulated. The origin of the marriage license in America dates to the 19th century, as an attempt to prevent inter-racial marriage. It was not until the mid 20th century that all states began issuing marriage licenses, though some states still do not require them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This addresses everything:

• The special benefits given to married couples - why they should/shouldn't receive them
• The inability for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized in certain states
• The idea that marriage is or isn't a right
• Etc

Thoughts, opinions?

Try to keep it civil...

Your first mistake is using the term "marriage", use of that term opens the thread to deflection with statements that same-sex couples can be "married" just that it is not recognized by the state. "Marriage" effectively exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is a status that exists between individuals and is recognized by they selected religious organization. Technically speaking, same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and if they don't complete (or do not have access to Civil Marriage) then they are "married" just not legally.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is the context of these discussions, is the legal status entered into by two individuals which is recognized by the government establishing a family relationship where one did not exist before. Just as Religious Marriage can exist outside the context of Civil Marriage, Civil Marriage can exist outside the context of religion.


>>>>

I'll be sure to use the term "civil marriage" from now on when regarding this issue. You are right in correcting me.

EDIT: So, what is your position on the issues I addressed in the bullets?

1. The benefits of Civil Marriage are written into the law, it would take a case-by-case examination to comment on each. They are what they are. IMHO, the federal government should recognize ALL legal Civil Marriages entered into under state law.

2. Personally, baring a compelling government interest that has never been articulated to date (see below), I think each state should allow Same-sex Civil Marriage. It that the way it is now? No. But, it will happen, it will just take time as some of the older folks in my generation become less influential as a voting block and the younger generation has a greater influence. I understand the frustration with the delay, but results achieved through acceptance will have a greater impact then results achieved through the courts. That's one reason I think the Prop 8 legal challenge was a mistake. It showed tactical thinking on the part of some instead of strategic thinking in the long term. Prop 8 lost by a factor where only about a 2.75% change in voter response would have changed the outcome. Attitudes continue to change and it would have been ripe for a re-ballot this year, and (in California) would have had a very good chance of passage; forever robbing the social authoritarians of the claim "it's never been passed by the voter". The political capital gained from such a victory in the most populous state of the union would have been huge.

2. Marriage isn't a right in the context used. However equal treatment under the law is a right and is enumerated in the Constitution. As such if laws are passed, then people have the 1st Amendment right to bring a grievance against the government to provide justification why the government may be acting in a capricious, invidious, and discriminatory manner in the treatment of like groups. In this case like groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a different-sex relationship compared to those that are in a law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a same-sex relationship. The government would have to provide a compelling reason why the two groups are being treated differently based on gender (which is the way all these laws are written) - to date no valid compelling (IMHO) has been brought forth. I think DOMA was bad law at the federal level. The fed's should recognize all legal Civil Marriages equally. Section 2 ONLY allows one state to ignore the law's of other states based on gender. Again IMHO, bad law. Now if the Congress has said that no state is required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage from another state if that Civil Marriage conflicts with their own laws, that would have been a better law.



Does that help?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll be sure to use the term "civil marriage" from now on when regarding this issue. You are right in correcting me.

EDIT: So, what is your position on the issues I addressed in the bullets?

BTW - I wasn't trying to be negative. I saw you are new to the boards and I've seen these discussions here and on another board I hang out at. The honest debaters respond understanding the context of the discussion as being marriage under Civil Law.


However there are invariably those that show up that inject marriage in a religious context (which is fine, but it's not marriage under Civil Law) and the ones that wanna go "but gay's can marry, it's just the government not recognizing it". I've found that my life is a lot easier (your results may vary), if I define in my posts that I'm talking about Civil Marriage (i.e. marriage under civil law) - tends to keep the distractions down.



>>>>

 

[gallantwarrior]

Your first mistake is using the term "marriage", use of that term opens the thread to deflection with statements that same-sex couples can be "married" just that it is not recognized by the state. "Marriage" effectively exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is a status that exists between individuals and is recognized by they selected religious organization. Technically speaking, same-sex couples can enter into Religious Marriage and if they don't complete (or do not have access to Civil Marriage) then they are "married" just not legally.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is the context of these discussions, is the legal status entered into by two individuals which is recognized by the government establishing a family relationship where one did not exist before. Just as Religious Marriage can exist outside the context of Civil Marriage, Civil Marriage can exist outside the context of religion.


>>>>

I'll be sure to use the term "civil marriage" from now on when regarding this issue. You are right in correcting me.

EDIT: So, what is your position on the issues I addressed in the bullets?

1. The benefits of Civil Marriage are written into the law, it would take a case-by-case examination to comment on each. They are what they are. IMHO, the federal government should recognize ALL legal Civil Marriages entered into under state law.

2. Personally, baring a compelling government interest that has never been articulated to date (see below), I think each state should allow Same-sex Civil Marriage. It that the way it is now? No. But, it will happen, it will just take time as some of the older folks in my generation become less influential as a voting block and the younger generation has a greater influence. I understand the frustration with the delay, but results achieved through acceptance will have a greater impact then results achieved through the courts. That's one reason I think the Prop 8 legal challenge was a mistake. It showed tactical thinking on the part of some instead of strategic thinking in the long term. Prop 8 lost by a factor where only about a 2.75% change in voter response would have changed the outcome. Attitudes continue to change and it would have been ripe for a re-ballot this year, and (in California) would have had a very good chance of passage; forever robbing the social authoritarians of the claim "it's never been passed by the voter". The political capital gained from such a victory in the most populous state of the union would have been huge.

2. Marriage isn't a right in the context used. However equal treatment under the law is a right and is enumerated in the Constitution. As such if laws are passed, then people have the 1st Amendment right to bring a grievance against the government to provide justification why the government may be acting in a capricious, invidious, and discriminatory manner in the treatment of like groups. In this case like groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a different-sex relationship compared to those that are in a law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a same-sex relationship. The government would have to provide a compelling reason why the two groups are being treated differently based on gender (which is the way all these laws are written) - to date no valid compelling (IMHO) has been brought forth. I think DOMA was bad law at the federal level. The fed's should recognize all legal Civil Marriages equally. Section 2 ONLY allows one state to ignore the law's of other states based on gender. Again IMHO, bad law. Now if the Congress has said that no state is required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage from another state if that Civil Marriage conflicts with their own laws, that would have been a better law.



Does that help?


>>>>

Why the limitation of non-related? I know of a couple of brother-brother and sister-sister pairs who support each other and live together. Why should they be denied the benefits that "married" couples enjoy, such as: tax breaks, the ability to include each other on their insurance, etc? One such "couple" includes children. (Not theirs jointly, but one brother has two kids who they raise.)

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll be sure to use the term "civil marriage" from now on when regarding this issue. You are right in correcting me.

EDIT: So, what is your position on the issues I addressed in the bullets?

1. The benefits of Civil Marriage are written into the law, it would take a case-by-case examination to comment on each. They are what they are. IMHO, the federal government should recognize ALL legal Civil Marriages entered into under state law.

2. Personally, baring a compelling government interest that has never been articulated to date (see below), I think each state should allow Same-sex Civil Marriage. It that the way it is now? No. But, it will happen, it will just take time as some of the older folks in my generation become less influential as a voting block and the younger generation has a greater influence. I understand the frustration with the delay, but results achieved through acceptance will have a greater impact then results achieved through the courts. That's one reason I think the Prop 8 legal challenge was a mistake. It showed tactical thinking on the part of some instead of strategic thinking in the long term. Prop 8 lost by a factor where only about a 2.75% change in voter response would have changed the outcome. Attitudes continue to change and it would have been ripe for a re-ballot this year, and (in California) would have had a very good chance of passage; forever robbing the social authoritarians of the claim "it's never been passed by the voter". The political capital gained from such a victory in the most populous state of the union would have been huge.

2. Marriage isn't a right in the context used. However equal treatment under the law is a right and is enumerated in the Constitution. As such if laws are passed, then people have the 1st Amendment right to bring a grievance against the government to provide justification why the government may be acting in a capricious, invidious, and discriminatory manner in the treatment of like groups. In this case like groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a different-sex relationship compared to those that are in a law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a same-sex relationship. The government would have to provide a compelling reason why the two groups are being treated differently based on gender (which is the way all these laws are written) - to date no valid compelling (IMHO) has been brought forth. I think DOMA was bad law at the federal level. The fed's should recognize all legal Civil Marriages equally. Section 2 ONLY allows one state to ignore the law's of other states based on gender. Again IMHO, bad law. Now if the Congress has said that no state is required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage from another state if that Civil Marriage conflicts with their own laws, that would have been a better law.



Does that help?


>>>>

Why the limitation of non-related? I know of a couple of brother-brother and sister-sister pairs who support each other and live together. Why should they be denied the benefits that "married" couples enjoy, such as: tax breaks, the ability to include each other on their insurance, etc? One such "couple" includes children. (Not theirs jointly, but one brother has two kids who they raise.)

Why non-related? Because that is not the context of the current discussion. Usually it's used as a deflect (not saying you, just saying often). The basis being that the slippery-slope (which is a fallacy used by debaters to paint negative consequences by using extreme, often perceived negative, consequences) instead of providing justification based on the issue actually being raised.

"Slippery Slope" though is not a compelling government reason to deny groups identified for discrimination as a consequence of the law with correcting the detrimental condition.



>>>>

 

[gallantwarrior]

1. The benefits of Civil Marriage are written into the law, it would take a case-by-case examination to comment on each. They are what they are. IMHO, the federal government should recognize ALL legal Civil Marriages entered into under state law.

2. Personally, baring a compelling government interest that has never been articulated to date (see below), I think each state should allow Same-sex Civil Marriage. It that the way it is now? No. But, it will happen, it will just take time as some of the older folks in my generation become less influential as a voting block and the younger generation has a greater influence. I understand the frustration with the delay, but results achieved through acceptance will have a greater impact then results achieved through the courts. That's one reason I think the Prop 8 legal challenge was a mistake. It showed tactical thinking on the part of some instead of strategic thinking in the long term. Prop 8 lost by a factor where only about a 2.75% change in voter response would have changed the outcome. Attitudes continue to change and it would have been ripe for a re-ballot this year, and (in California) would have had a very good chance of passage; forever robbing the social authoritarians of the claim "it's never been passed by the voter". The political capital gained from such a victory in the most populous state of the union would have been huge.

2. Marriage isn't a right in the context used. However equal treatment under the law is a right and is enumerated in the Constitution. As such if laws are passed, then people have the 1st Amendment right to bring a grievance against the government to provide justification why the government may be acting in a capricious, invidious, and discriminatory manner in the treatment of like groups. In this case like groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a different-sex relationship compared to those that are in a law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adult couples in a same-sex relationship. The government would have to provide a compelling reason why the two groups are being treated differently based on gender (which is the way all these laws are written) - to date no valid compelling (IMHO) has been brought forth. I think DOMA was bad law at the federal level. The fed's should recognize all legal Civil Marriages equally. Section 2 ONLY allows one state to ignore the law's of other states based on gender. Again IMHO, bad law. Now if the Congress has said that no state is required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage from another state if that Civil Marriage conflicts with their own laws, that would have been a better law.



Does that help?


>>>>

Why the limitation of non-related? I know of a couple of brother-brother and sister-sister pairs who support each other and live together. Why should they be denied the benefits that "married" couples enjoy, such as: tax breaks, the ability to include each other on their insurance, etc? One such "couple" includes children. (Not theirs jointly, but one brother has two kids who they raise.)

Why non-related? Because that is not the context of the current discussion. Usually it's used as a deflect (not saying you, just saying often). The basis being that the slippery-slope (which is a fallacy used by debaters to paint negative consequences by using extreme, often perceived negative, consequences) instead of providing justification based on the issue actually being raised.

"Slippery Slope" though is not a compelling government reason to deny groups identified for discrimination as a consequence of the law with correcting the detrimental condition.



>>>>

Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, per se. If anything, it might appropriately fall under the 10th Amendment and be left to each State to decide. When the argument of equal protection, as guaranteed in the Constitution, is broached as justification for a sanction of same-gender unions, it is used to assume that such unions enjoy the same protections and privileges as a conventional "marriage". That being the case, why limit such protection only to couples who include some sexual context in their conjugal relationship?
Why shouldn't such protections and privileges not be assumed contractually when two (or more) consenting adults enter into a civil union (marriage, if you prefer). As long as some legal instrument has been executed that obligates each participant to the mutual support of the other(s), I see no problem extending such protection even to related partners. Of course, legally binding contracts must also be legally dissolved if, or when, the partners of that contract deem it necessary.

 

[Cenotaph]

I'll be sure to use the term "civil marriage" from now on when regarding this issue. You are right in correcting me.

EDIT: So, what is your position on the issues I addressed in the bullets?

BTW - I wasn't trying to be negative. I saw you are new to the boards and I've seen these discussions here and on another board I hang out at. The honest debaters respond understanding the context of the discussion as being marriage under Civil Law.


However there are invariably those that show up that inject marriage in a religious context (which is fine, but it's not marriage under Civil Law) and the ones that wanna go "but gay's can marry, it's just the government not recognizing it". I've found that my life is a lot easier (your results may vary), if I define in my posts that I'm talking about Civil Marriage (i.e. marriage under civil law) - tends to keep the distractions down.

>>>>

No, you are most definitely right. I knew that you weren't being negative nor was my response meant to be sarcastic or negative itself.

I appreciated your correcting my mistake because it can cut through a lot of nonsense in debates regarding topics such as this one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, its regulation is a function of the states.

To the extent the states allow all citizens access to their marriage laws.

If the states simply followed the Constitution’s mandate with regard to equal protection doctrine, there’d be no need for litigation.