Civil Right?

[RetiredGySgt]

The following arguments are what I have heard presented for claiming Gay marriage is a Civil Right.

2 consenting adults that love each other.

2 consenting adults can do as they please in the privacy of their home.

The Government has no compelling interest in legislating conduct between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home.

Hetros get a tax break for being married.

Any more?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right?

Likely because it isn’t a civil right.

Indeed, there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ as each state has the same marriage law for everyone.

The issue has to do with equal access to the laws, in this case marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

As the Court noted in Romer:

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “‘Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. “The guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are in the Minority. Gays and their myriad supports all claim Gay marriage is a Civil Right. And so far on this board have listed the reasons I provided.

 

[FA_Q2]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

 

[Barb]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

 

[FA_Q2]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

I would not go that far. While I believe that the government is required to support such marriages I do not see how a religious institution (or any institution that is not a government one for that matter) should be forced to do any such thing. The equal protection has nothing to do with the ceremony. It is the license and marriage certificate that you purchase from the government that matters. Churches regularly refuse to marry people for a number of reasons. My mother was forced to become a member of her church (because her spouse wanted to marry in a specific church) because the pastor refused to marry people outside the churches faith.

What makes you believe that a pastor or other church representative should be compelled to provide any service whatsoever to anyone? I don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything.

 

[sparky]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

Is hetero marriage a civil right here?

~S~

 

[Barb]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

I would not go that far. While I believe that the government is required to support such marriages I do not see how a religious institution (or any institution that is not a government one for that matter) should be forced to do any such thing. The equal protection has nothing to do with the ceremony. It is the license and marriage certificate that you purchase from the government that matters. Churches regularly refuse to marry people for a number of reasons. My mother was forced to become a member of her church (because her spouse wanted to marry in a specific church) because the pastor refused to marry people outside the churches faith.

What makes you believe that a pastor or other church representative should be compelled to provide any service whatsoever to anyone? I don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything.

read my post again. It did NOT suggest that churches that did not support gender equality should be forced to do so, but that those churches that DO support and wish to perform the rites have THEIR ceremonies AS supported by a government license as the other churches already are.

 

[FA_Q2]

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

I would not go that far. While I believe that the government is required to support such marriages I do not see how a religious institution (or any institution that is not a government one for that matter) should be forced to do any such thing. The equal protection has nothing to do with the ceremony. It is the license and marriage certificate that you purchase from the government that matters. Churches regularly refuse to marry people for a number of reasons. My mother was forced to become a member of her church (because her spouse wanted to marry in a specific church) because the pastor refused to marry people outside the churches faith.

What makes you believe that a pastor or other church representative should be compelled to provide any service whatsoever to anyone? I don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything.

read my post again. It did NOT suggest that churches that did not support gender equality should be forced to do so, but that those churches that DO support and wish to perform the rites have THEIR ceremonies AS supported by a government license as the other churches already are.

Read it again, now I understand what you were getting at. Forgive me, I was not trying to misconstrue what you said. I just misunderstood I did not think that was ever an issue though? If it is legal then of course, churches that perform the rite will be recognized. At that point there would be no reason not to.


It is also worth saying that gay marriage is going to be a reality. To all those that are against it, you might as well find out how you are going to live with it and concentrate on getting the laws in place that you can deal with instead of fighting the entire wave (such as ensuring religious institutions are not forced into marrying gay couples). Betting against gay marriage is a lost cause. It is coming and there is nothing that anyone can do at this point to stop it.

 

[George Costanza]

The following arguments are what I have heard presented for claiming Gay marriage is a Civil Right.

2 consenting adults that love each other.

2 consenting adults can do as they please in the privacy of their home.

The Government has no compelling interest in legislating conduct between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home.

Hetros get a tax break for being married.

Any more?

How about this, Gunny? - the only reason I have seen for opposition to gay marriage is intolerance and bigotry. You got anything else?

Take a look at this thread I started on this very subject in July of last year. It was quite popular and generated a lot of comment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...basis-other-than-intolerance-and-bigotry.html

 

[George Costanza]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

You know, it's really quite simple. When a government has a legitimate interest in preventing marriages (marriage between blood relatives, for example), it can, and should, do so. When there is no legimate reason to prevent marriages between certain types of people (inter racial marriage, marriage between gays), then the government cannot prevent such marriages.

There is no legitimate reason whatsover for preventing gay marriage. Intolerance and bigotry are not legitimate reasons. I have yet to hear a valid, logical argument against gay marriage - they are either red herrings or bull shit arguments designed to mask the true reason for the opposition: intolerance and bigotry.

 

[peach174]

Why can't gay's have a civil union?
It would give them the provisions they are asking for.

 

[George Costanza]

Why can't gay's have a civil union?
It would give them the provisions they are asking for.

Because a civil union is not the same thing as marriage. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? Separate but equal is not equal. That sort of thing . . . .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who cares if he is in the minority, he is right. It is not the business of government to decide who gets protection under the law and who does not. Law should be equal for all. If you do not want government sponsorship of marriages that do not agree with your morality then you are going to need to support getting government out of ALL marriages. If not, then marriage needs to be extended to gay couples as well.

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

You know, it's really quite simple. When a government has a legitimate interest in preventing marriages (marriage between blood relatives, for example), it can, and should, do so. When there is no legimate reason to prevent marriages between certain types of people (inter racial marriage, marriage between gays), then the government cannot prevent such marriages.

There is no legitimate reason whatsover for preventing gay marriage. Intolerance and bigotry are not legitimate reasons. I have yet to hear a valid, logical argument against gay marriage - they are either red herrings or bull shit arguments designed to mask the true reason for the opposition: intolerance and bigotry.

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

I thought the criteria was that they love each other, be consenting adults and all was right with the world.

Be warned if you are going to claim defects first generation defects from blood relatives is so minor as to occurrence as to be irrelevant, further the Government allows people that have a 50 percent chance to pass on a defect to marry and breed.

Other then your ick factor why should blood relatives be prevented from marrying?

 

[George Costanza]

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

You know, it's really quite simple. When a government has a legitimate interest in preventing marriages (marriage between blood relatives, for example), it can, and should, do so. When there is no legimate reason to prevent marriages between certain types of people (inter racial marriage, marriage between gays), then the government cannot prevent such marriages.

There is no legitimate reason whatsover for preventing gay marriage. Intolerance and bigotry are not legitimate reasons. I have yet to hear a valid, logical argument against gay marriage - they are either red herrings or bull shit arguments designed to mask the true reason for the opposition: intolerance and bigotry.

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

I thought the criteria was that they love each other, be consenting adults and all was right with the world.

Be warned if you are going to claim defects first generation defects from blood relatives is so minor as to occurrence as to be irrelevant, further the Government allows people that have a 50 percent chance to pass on a defect to marry and breed.

Other then your ick factor why should blood relatives be prevented from marrying?

Well, it is not technically true that blood relatives cannot marry. Beyond certain degrees of consanguinity, blood relatives are allowed to marry. I haven't reviewed this in some time, but I think that second cousins and beyond can marry.

You are joking when you ask why blood relatives are not allowed to marry, right? In case you are not - if blood siblings (brother and sister) produce a child, genetic defects can occur. If marriages between blood relatives continue in that same blood line, things can get really messy.

Remember the little guy with the banjo, sitting on the bridge as Burt Reynolds and his pals embarked on their little canoe trip into hell in "Deliverance"? That kind of stuff.

 

[George Costanza]

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

Because the main purpose of the government is to produce, oversee and promote an organized, well running society. If that society is composed of drooling idiots, it isn't going to work so well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You know, it's really quite simple. When a government has a legitimate interest in preventing marriages (marriage between blood relatives, for example), it can, and should, do so. When there is no legimate reason to prevent marriages between certain types of people (inter racial marriage, marriage between gays), then the government cannot prevent such marriages.

There is no legitimate reason whatsover for preventing gay marriage. Intolerance and bigotry are not legitimate reasons. I have yet to hear a valid, logical argument against gay marriage - they are either red herrings or bull shit arguments designed to mask the true reason for the opposition: intolerance and bigotry.

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

I thought the criteria was that they love each other, be consenting adults and all was right with the world.

Be warned if you are going to claim defects first generation defects from blood relatives is so minor as to occurrence as to be irrelevant, further the Government allows people that have a 50 percent chance to pass on a defect to marry and breed.

Other then your ick factor why should blood relatives be prevented from marrying?

Well, it is not technically true that blood relatives cannot marry. Beyond certain degrees of consanguinity, blood relatives are allowed to marry. I haven't reviewed this in some time, but I think that second cousins and beyond can marry.

You are joking when you ask why blood relatives are not allowed to marry, right? In case you are not - if blood siblings (brother and sister) produce a child, genetic defects can occur. If marriages between blood relatives continue in that same blood line, things can get really messy.

Remember the little guy with the banjo, sitting on the bridge as Burt Reynolds and his pals embarked on their little canoe trip into hell in "Deliverance"? That kind of stuff.

1st generation is almost completely without defect, think the occurrence rate is around 1 percent. Why are you assuming that blood relatives that marry, their children will do the same?

As for birth defects, again for the slow, there are known defects that have a 50 percent chance to occur and NONE of those people are prevented from marrying or breeding. Further even if the offspring don't have the defect they too will be carriers of the defect for later generation.

So back to my question, why is it a compelling reason for the Government to prevent siblings from marrying? The ONLY argument you have put forward for why Gays should be allowed is because they are consenting adults and love each other.

Further the argument ( which I believe) is made that two gay parents won't effect the sexual preference of who their children will marry. SO why are you assuming that incestuous marriages would effect who the children marry?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

Because the main purpose of the government is to produce, oversee and promote an organized, well running society. If that society is composed of drooling idiots, it isn't going to work so well.

A society is supposed to ensure its survival as well, without a third party, Gays can not reproduce. And I have shown that the claim that incest will follow incest is simply a lie.

 

[NoNukes]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

The fact that it is a human right is more than enough to justify same sex marriage.