Bullypulpit said:
Do you even <b><i>KNOW</i></b> any gay people?
I've known plenty of straight couples whose relationships were "...purely lust and selfishness...", and they were as disasterous as relationships between same-gender couples based upon nothing more than that. You don't spend 10, 20, 30 years or more with someone based upon "...purely lust and selfishness...". And I've met more than a few same-gender couples who have been together for not just years, but decades...and yes, they DO love each other. And, no, they're not confused. If anyone is confused, it is most likely you.
Forty years ago you would have been spouting the same crap about inter-racial couples.
Bully has a point. In that man and woman are allowed rights (LEGAL) thata same sex couple is denied, solely on this being a sin. My opinion, love the sinner, not the sin. However, this country does not abide by many rules of the old testament. I find it intriguing that this issue brings up many of these types of laws. If we bring up some, what about the rest? Anyways, my point is, this fight (at least among some very close family members of mine) is SOLELY about legal rights, not about something being called a "marriage." For as one pointed out to me and has been said in this post, many man - woman marriages are SOLELY for lust. Maybe money, maybe government, maybe empire, and so forth. All these have been sanctioned. Are these marriages?????? The point is, marriage is as was defined in Genisis. Today, legal rights are a different thing.
Where I disagree with Bully is that people of the same sex should be allowed "marriage." This is fundamentally/historically and so forth, a union of man and woman. It was; to the predominantly faiths of today, Christian/Jewish/Islam, a symbol of a man and a woman. Atheist? I don't know, do they have a definition of marriage?
I also do not support Bully's last sentence.
Where Bully has a point is that the State (or the Federal government vis the constitution which influences the States) has power over marriage "contracts." Marriage is a fundamental right. However, here is where is gets real interesting. Before 1975 (In CA) there were different presumptions on women's property rights acquired during marriage. Even earlier than 1975 (late 1900's), it was presumed that all property acquired during marriage was the husbands. The question is:
Is this a fundamental right? That the husband takes the property, in presumption.
I don't think so. I think the fundamental right at issue is the "RIGHT" to marry. This is commonly understood as between a man and a woman. No problem.
However, as discussed in a brief synosp of marriage law in some states, has evolved with modern times. This simply and only means, that the rights between the parties has evolved. Go back a hundred or so years and a woman would not have half the rights she has today. Does anyone here support this?
I will assume not. That being. There is a law in and amonst the various states that recognize "common law" marriage. This a UNION between two poeple, man and woman that has NOT been sanctified in a court of law. These two people, however, are afforded certain rights akin to people that are married. Their LEGAL rights are less albeit, however, they have rights concerning the distribution of property upon dissolution.
Next we come to the legal rights that marriage grants. Nowhere in the constitution are the rights "fundamentally" recognized. However, these rights have been deemed to be fundamentally recognized by the various courts of law, not the legislature (this is why the higher courts are giving this very issue back to the states).
These contractual rights are not fundamental, they have been evolving as the course of rights of people has over the years. For example:
The right to visit a partner in the hospital
The right to receive the half of your community property
The right to make life and death decisions for your partner
The right to inheritance
The right to joint tenancies (unless expressly stated)
The right to support
The right to Intestate wills
The list goes on. However, the list remains. This was a very closely watched issue in WA state. Gays lost at the Supreme court level (for WA). Ok, no one barked over that. Activist judges? Did not hear a peep. So now the legislature is having to the work of deciding where this should stand. AS IT SHOULD be. Historically this a legislative function, Judges should back off.
But, please consider, that no matter where you stand on the issue, certain rights are not inherent under our constitution, they have been allowed over time.
Thank you.
