Newt Gingrich Changes Views on Gay-Marriage, Says 'Deal with Reality'

[WorldWatcher]

Should we circumvent the law for those who want to marry more than one person?

In places where Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal, no law has been circumvented. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal, they are - well - legal.



When animals are allowed to sign legal contracts, let us know.



Actually speaking of the Bible there were two types of marriages: monogamous and polygamous.




And in those states different-sex couples are still allowed to Civilly Marry.




So you have an issue when people CHOOSE a religion and then demand religious rights?

Or is it just homosexuals demanding a right embodied in the 14th Amendment to equal treatment under the law that you have problems with?


**********************************

Civil Marriage laws don't "force" anyone to do anything. As such I support equal treatment for homosexuals. The real culprit isn't Civil Marriage laws it's Public Accommodation laws that force private business entities to not discriminate based on race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc...

Personally I say allow Same-sex Civil Marriage to be equally accessible to Different-sex Civil Marriages and repeal Public Accommodation laws so that private entities retrain the right to refuse service as they see fit. Would it be messy? Probably. But that is the cost of a truly smaller less intrusive government.



>>>>

Public accommodations policy is predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where Congress and the states are authorized to regulate commerce and ensure there are no obstacles to access of a given market; that it would be ‘messy’ is indeed what the states are allowed to prevent, and public accommodations laws have long ago passed Constitutional muster:

How obstructions in commerce [p262] may be removed -- what means are to be employed -- is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress. It is subject only to one caveat -- that the means chosen by it must be reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution. We cannot say that its choice here was not so adapted. The Constitution requires no more.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws, therefore, do not manifest an ‘intrusive government,’ rather, they ensure a free flow of commerce by preventing obstructions, and merchants refusing the patronage of potential customers based solely on the customers’ race, religion, or sexual orientation would clearly create an obstacle harmful to efficient commercial transactions.

I didn't say that Public Accommodation Laws didn't pass Constitutions muster. A law can be Constitutional, but I am fully capable of disagreeing with it from a philosophical perspective.

The second point is still valid, it's not the Same-sex Civil Marriage laws that the fear-mongers who use the unintended consequences argument that Same-sex Civil Marriage will force businesses to cater to same-sex couples - it's Public Accommodation laws (which in many state already do that, irregardless of Civil Marriage). Civil Marriage laws are not the basis of "forced" compliance, it's Public Accommodation laws dictating who a private business must serve (or more specifically the conditions under which denial of services can be made).



>>>>