Gay Marriage Proposal

[WorldWatcher]

There is no constitutional right to have the government bless your marriage

The fact that you say entitled says much

So the court erred when it found that the government counld not discrimniate (as it pertains to Civil Marriage) based on a biological condition (i.e. race)? And it's OK for the State to discriminate based on another biological condition (i.e. gender)?


BTW - There is a Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law embodied in the 14th Amendment and one of the foundations of our system is that for discrimination to continue the government must have a compelling government interest if treating like situated groups differently. In this case those like situated groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a different-sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a same-sex couple that are not allowed to Civilly Marry.


P.S. - Government don't "Bless" Civil Marriages, blessings that may be involved with marriages are from religious organizations "blessing" per the doctrine of that religious organization. Civil Marriage is a secular institution, no religious component required.

>>>>

 

[DavidS]

LOL at this entire thread!! There is absolutely no reason to restrict marriage or to in any way, shape or form limit the amount of freedom on a gay or transsexual couple. It's disgusting that we live in a world today where people actually still think this.

The purpose of marriage and its recognition by the state is to shape the form of the family unit which is the foundation upon which society is built. The purpose of the state is to maintain and perpetuate that same society. Ergo the state must pursue such policies as serve the greater interest of society

Oy. You sound like the dude from the Matrix. Ergo. Visa vis. Concordently.

The purpose of marriage and its recognition by the state... is to MAKE MONEY!! The state doesn't give a rats ass if some Mormon Church marries 10 women to a guy, but the State can't do it. Separation between church and state, bub.

Anyhoo, maintain and perp.. whatver, not even going to try to spell it. I mean, you coulda had a point I dunno, like 150 years ago before Slavery was outlawed, but I mean, we had that whole civil war thing that pretty much made that irrelevant.

Uhhmmm... Ergo - society changes. Women get rights. Black people get rights. Now gay people will get rights. Society evolves... thankfully!XXXXXXX-Meister

 

[DavidS]

If marriage hadn't already been damaged by a skyrocketing divorce rate, we might not be discussing gay marriage today at all. First the destruction of marriage had to happen.

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

Let's just say for a second you're correct.

So the hell what? XXXXXXXX-Meister

The only difference between you and a gay person is that they are sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. That's it. When they get up in the morning, they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you do.

XXXXXX

 

[varelse]

So the court erred when it found that the government counld not discrimniate (as it pertains to Civil Marriage) based on a biological condition (i.e. race)? And it's OK for the State to discriminate based on another biological condition (i.e. gender)?

All races had the same right to wed, just as both sexes [gender is socio-biological in nature ] have the same right to pursue marriage and begin a family

BTW - There is a Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law embodied in the 14th Amendment

incorrect. A right to equal protection of existent rights is not a right to equal treatment and backing of one's actions and lifestyle without regard to social impact

P.S. - Government don't "Bless" Civil Marriages

It grants approval and validity as well as incentives. it grants the blessings and support of the state.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So the court erred when it found that the government counld not discrimniate (as it pertains to Civil Marriage) based on a biological condition (i.e. race)? And it's OK for the State to discriminate based on another biological condition (i.e. gender)?

All races had the same right to wed, just as both sexes [gender is socio-biological in nature ] have the same right to pursue marriage and begin a family

Which is what I said, your position is (or at least appears to be) that the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia case because whites had the ability to Civilly Marry and coloreds had the ability to Civilly Marry. That because each at the ability individually, that no rights were violated even though it was illegal for them to Civilly Marry each other.

Funny thing is if you read the decision that very line of reasoning was presented by the government and soundly rejected.

BTW - There is a Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law embodied in the 14th Amendment

incorrect. A right to equal protection of existent rights is not a right to equal treatment and backing of one's actions and lifestyle without regard to social impact
I don't disagree, you use the words "social impact". A nice way of saying if I don't agree with it, then that is justification for making something illegal. Sorry, that is not the standard. The standard is a compelling government interest in treating like situatted groups differently. Those goups being, in this case, law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a different-sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults in a same-sex couple that are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

P.S. - Government don't "Bless" Civil Marriages

It grants approval and validity as well as incentives. it grants the blessings and support of the state.

Blessings is normally associated with religion, Civil Marriage is not a religious institution - it's a secular one. And to date, there has been no valid secular reason for treating like situated groups differently based on gender (see above for those groups).



>>>>

 

[varelse]

Funny thing is if you read the decision that very line of reasoning was presented by the government and soundly rejected.

By the same institution that still holds that the state may forcefully sterilize its subjects, invented a right to kill your unborn child based on perjury and search-and-siezure law, and invented a, commerce clause' which gives the fed carte blanch to do literally anything they want. The same institution that upheld segregation and overturned the right to self-determination...

Your point? You didn't think a ruling by scotus wad relevent to this discussion, did you? We're discussing what ought to be, not what is.

It grants approval and validity as well as incentives. it grants the blessings and support of the state.

there has been no valid secular reason for treating like situated groups differently based on gender

we don't in marriage and nobody is proposing we do

We currently do in other areas of law

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Funny thing is if you read the decision that very line of reasoning was presented by the government and soundly rejected.

By the same institution that still holds that the state may forcefully sterilize its subjects, invented a right to kill your unborn child based on perjury and search-and-siezure law, and invented a, commerce clause' which gives the fed carte blanch to do literally anything they want. The same institution that upheld segregation and overturned the right to self-determination...

Your point? You didn't think a ruling by scotus wad relevent to this discussion, did you? We're discussing what ought to be, not what is.

It grants approval and validity as well as incentives. it grants the blessings and support of the state.

there has been no valid secular reason for treating like situated groups differently based on gender

we don't in marriage and nobody is proposing we do

We currently do in other areas of law

What ‘ought to be’ is the states should follow equal protection doctrine, the way it is now is that they do not.

That you disagree with many of the High Court’s rulings in no way mitigates the doctrine of judicial review, and the requirement of the state to justify its denying citizens of a fundamental right, in this case marriage and equal protection of the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children. (The government has no legitimate interest in relations between consenting adults.) As such, civil marriage should not be:
a. a civil rights issue;
b. a religious issue; or
c. a tradition issue.

The biggest social problem in our country is the breakdown of the nuclear family, as evidenced by increasing divorce and illegitimacy rates. Any changes to marriage and/or family laws should be considered in this context. I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. However, I am concerned that it will further undermine the concept of civil marriage in this country unless it is accompanied by other changes to our laws which promote marriage.

Therefore, I propose that we expand the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples, but limit the tax benefits to married couples (or widows/widowers) with children under 18. Despite the politically correct defense of Murphy Brown, children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society.

Despite good intentions, or current policy of supporting/rewarding this situation only makes the problem worse. Our policy should be that, if you want children, get married first and stay married (at least until they turn 18). Furthermore, No Fault divorce should not be available to people with children under 18, and those who do divorce should not get further tax preferences for future children.

This may sound judgmental, but what other solutions exist?

If marriage was about children it wouldn't apply to childless couples or couples whose children had grown up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Funny thing is if you read the decision that very line of reasoning was presented by the government and soundly rejected.

By the same institution that still holds that the state may forcefully sterilize its subjects, invented a right to kill your unborn child based on perjury and search-and-siezure law, and invented a, commerce clause' which gives the fed carte blanch to do literally anything they want. The same institution that upheld segregation and overturned the right to self-determination...

Your point? You didn't think a ruling by scotus wad relevent to this discussion, did you? We're discussing what ought to be, not what is.

Actually I was just pointing out that your argument, that there is no discrimination because homosexuals can Civilly Marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else, mirrors the same arguments used to justify making interracial Civil Marriages illegal. It didn't fly then either.

As we move into the future:

.....The courts have rejected it...

............. Legislatures are rejecting it...

....................And voters at the ballot box have begun to reject it.


And you are correct, we are discussing what ought to be and the government should not discriminate against it's citizens via invidious and capricious laws with no compelling government interest.

It grants approval and validity as well as incentives. it grants the blessings and support of the state.

there has been no valid secular reason for treating like situated groups differently based on gender

we don't in marriage and nobody is proposing we do

We currently do in other areas of law

Not sure what you were trying to say, but yes, we do (in many areas of this country) discriminate against same-sex couples in terms of Civil Marriage laws.

But that is changing.



>>>>

 

[varelse]

What ‘ought to be’ is the states should follow equal protection doctrine, the way it is now is that they do not.

Actually, they do. They all have the same [civil] right to enter into the same relationship with a single person of the opposite sex and file for official recognition and benefits from the state


They enjoy equal protection of the same right . And state recognition of marriage is a CIVIL right, not a natural or fundamental right.

 

[varelse]

If marriage hadn't already been damaged by a skyrocketing divorce rate, we might not be discussing gay marriage today at all. First the destruction of marriage had to happen.

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

Let's just say for a second you're correct.

So the hell what? XXXXXXXX-Meister

The only difference between you and a gay person is that they are sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. That's it. When they get up in the morning, they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you do.

XXXXXX

Sex. 'Gay' in such context refers to homosexuals, not 'homogenderals'- or whatever the word for that would be

 

[varelse]

I've already explained there is compelling: government interest. Marriage policy shapes family structure and home environment, which effects crime rates, homelessness, and all other social ills by shaping the character of the populace

 

[Neurotika]

Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children. (The government has no legitimate interest in relations between consenting adults.) As such, civil marriage should not be:
a. a civil rights issue;
b. a religious issue; or
c. a tradition issue.

The biggest social problem in our country is the breakdown of the nuclear family, as evidenced by increasing divorce and illegitimacy rates. Any changes to marriage and/or family laws should be considered in this context. I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. However, I am concerned that it will further undermine the concept of civil marriage in this country unless it is accompanied by other changes to our laws which promote marriage.

Therefore, I propose that we expand the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples, but limit the tax benefits to married couples (or widows/widowers) with children under 18. Despite the politically correct defense of Murphy Brown, children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society.

Despite good intentions, or current policy of supporting/rewarding this situation only makes the problem worse. Our policy should be that, if you want children, get married first and stay married (at least until they turn 18). Furthermore, No Fault divorce should not be available to people with children under 18, and those who do divorce should not get further tax preferences for future children.

This may sound judgmental, but what other solutions exist?

"children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society."

most gays couples having/adopting kids arent single..so not sure how that relates..unless i misunderstood you?

well heteros in general do not have the best track record with marriage..we do not 'own' marriage or the word and all that entails..and the bible quoters should also be quoting that it is ok for a man to have slaves, sleep with them...etc

it IS a civil and human right and it is not our right to give to or take from another..
just like controlling my own body as a woman is my basic right. human/civil/whatevs..

their marriage will not influence or damage yours in any way what so ever. ever.

every person should have the same rights /gay/straight/black/female/et al

we are people and trying to define what one can have over the other is, in my opinion. very wrong. same for all.

 

[Neurotika]

Gayism is taught and practiced. not hereditary and natural.

you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion?

and re: gays having gay children..proof of this or opinion?

 

[varelse]

Gayism is taught and practiced. not hereditary and natural.

you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion?

and re: gays having gay children..proof of this or opinion?

The science says it is primarily determined during pregnancy through complex interaction of hormones, possibly with genetic factors effecting the probability of their having certain outcomes. See: three stages of fetal sexualization

 

[Neurotika]

Gayism is taught and practiced. not hereditary and natural.

you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion?

and re: gays having gay children..proof of this or opinion?

The science says it is primarily determined during pregnancy through complex interaction of hormones, possibly with genetic factors effecting the probability of their having certain outcomes. See: three stages of fetal sexualization

will search it and read , thanks for the info.

any proof that it 'degrades' a family structure in any way?

my experiences say no..i've been friends with gays since i was a teenager and all their families are great and warm and loving and for the most part their children are just as successful...if they are not constantly bullied they do just fine..like me or you.

i see more dysfunctional hetero families than i do gay families. maybe because there are more of them but that has been my experience for nearly 30 years.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've already explained there is compelling: government interest. Marriage policy shapes family structure and home environment, which effects crime rates, homelessness, and all other social ills by shaping the character of the populace

A. There is no discrimination. (Strike one)

B. There is a government compelling interest so that Civilly Married couples raise children. And it's really kind of shameful way to try to justify government discrimination. (Strike two)


#2 Reasoning:

1. No State in the union requires fertility as a condition of Civil Marriage.

2. No State in the union ends Civil Marriages if it is later determined that one (or both) of the married couple is infertile.

3. All States extend the exact same benefits to participants in a Civil Marriage (as a function of marriage) whether they have children or not.

4. All States extend the exact same benefits to a parent(s) (based on having a child) whether they are married or not.

5. In most states (and growing smaller), same-sex couples with children (and the last census shows this to be about 25% of those couples) are still denied Civil Marriage even though they are raising children.​

If others would like to review the similarities in the arguments between same-sex Civil Marriage and interracial Civil Marriage they can be found here -->> http://www.equalitygiving.org/files...t_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf


>>>>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children.

Imbecile Alert!

​

 

[Valerie]

Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children.

Imbecile Alert!

​

Shaman alert!

 

[varelse]

Even without children being home , traditional forms of marriage have historically served as working models to perpetuate healthy imageI'll be working family of a working family

Retired persons without minors in the home still constitute a family unit, and so the same matters apply