|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:19 pm
Please excuse me if there is already a thread on this, I didn't see it.
Last I heard, in only 3 states is it legal to marry the same sex. Why is this? I used to think Marriage as a lawful service, not a church one. You know "Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?" So what right does the church have to say a gay couple can't get married? If it is entirely church based, why haven't they made a service for marriage outside the church, so that way gays can get married? Are we so judgemental that we revert back to the days of slavery where blacks were lesser beings and didn't have rights, so now gays don't have equal rights either?
I am not gay, but I do believe everyone deserves a chance at happiness.
Discuss your opinions.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:45 pm
I really think it's dumb people think it needs to be discussed. We all deserve equal rights, including that to marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:14 pm
Gay people have the same right to misery as straight people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:29 pm
Divine_Malevolence Gay people have the same right to misery as straight people.
Well said lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:19 pm
*shrugs* I'm opposed to gay marriage.
But then I'm opposed to straight marriage as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:21 pm
Hah, sly fox. I saw that wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:37 pm
Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The last part is most important. As marriage is, as you said, a legal institution, denying a person the right to marry based on gender is not considered equal protection. Simply put, heterosexual people are getting legal opportunities that homosexual people are not.
Also, in flat-out banning gay marriage (as, unless I misread it, Proposition 8 did in California) would be going against the bit about abridging privileges. Yes, America does have in place a system of majority rule- but that does not change the fact that minorities, thanks largely to this particular amendment, have the same exact rights that cannot be infringed upon.
Just waiting for the Supreme Court to pick this one up. It's used the Fourteenth Amendment to uphold gay rights before (see: Lawrence v. Texas), and it can be used again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:43 pm
Tabihito Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The last part is most important. As marriage is, as you said, a legal institution, denying a person the right to marry based on gender is not considered equal protection. Simply put, heterosexual people are getting legal opportunities that homosexual people are not.
Also, in flat-out banning gay marriage (as, unless I misread it, Proposition 8 did in California) would be going against the bit about abridging privileges. Yes, America does have in place a system of majority rule- but that does not change the fact that minorities, thanks largely to this particular amendment, have the same exact rights that cannot be infringed upon.
Just waiting for the Supreme Court to pick this one up. It's used the Fourteenth Amendment to uphold gay rights before (see: Lawrence v. Texas), and it can be used again.
Now, I don't know American law very well... But I do remember hearing that there is a catch point to invoking one of them regarding Gay Marriage, that being that you had to prove that it was not a choice. Not sure if that's the one you're talking about or not though D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:27 am
Tabihito Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The last part is most important. As marriage is, as you said, a legal institution, denying a person the right to marry based on gender is not considered equal protection. Simply put, heterosexual people are getting legal opportunities that homosexual people are not.
Also, in flat-out banning gay marriage (as, unless I misread it, Proposition 8 did in California) would be going against the bit about abridging privileges. Yes, America does have in place a system of majority rule- but that does not change the fact that minorities, thanks largely to this particular amendment, have the same exact rights that cannot be infringed upon.
Just waiting for the Supreme Court to pick this one up. It's used the Fourteenth Amendment to uphold gay rights before (see: Lawrence v. Texas), and it can be used again.
Until it infringes upon the rights of oth....... Still don't see how these people are attaining legal basis for this crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:39 am
Valheita Now, I don't know American law very well... But I do remember hearing that there is a catch point to invoking one of them regarding Gay Marriage, that being that you had to prove that it was not a choice. Not sure if that's the one you're talking about or not though D: Why would you need to prove that it isn't a choice? I was under the impression we had the right of choice as well. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:47 am
Valheita Now, I don't know American law very well... But I do remember hearing that there is a catch point to invoking one of them regarding Gay Marriage, that being that you had to prove that it was not a choice. Not sure if that's the one you're talking about or not though D: That's not law.
That's what you say to Christians who tell you you're a sinner for being gay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:58 am
I support gay marriage and live in CA. Marriage is not a religious institution anymore. It is a specialized legal contract between two consenting adults. Giving a different name like Civil Union doesn't fix the issue. It could actually lead to in place work discrimination when filling out tax forms. My mom is a perfect example of this. She is a lesbian and when we moved to Portland, OR she got a job at a local college. The guy who hired her found out she is a lesbian and spent the next 6 months trying to get her fired. Now, at this place they did conduct a background check and have their employees fill out application that did have marital status. If my mom and her partner at the time did get married under the Civil Union, her potential employer would have noticed this and not hired her. Now I'm sure you're thinking she could sue him, well proving work place discrimination is extremely difficult and unless the person tells you explicitly you have no proof and no case. Bottom line, as we saw with the racial separate but equal laws, they don't work and just promote more discrimination.
"Churches will be forced to perform gay marriage" Not true. A church is not required to perform any marriage. My future mother in law and her husband were refused by the catholic church to be married there because her husband was not a catholic. There is no law requiring religious places to conduct marriages. In fact you can get married by a judge, it does not need to be someone religiously affiliated.
"Children will learn about gay marriage in school" Not in CA schools. Our curriculum concerning marriage and sex are up to the school district and if you are so inclined you are more than welcome to say my children don't need to learn about alternative lifestyles.
"Gay people only produce gay children" =M= I've always found that one annoying especially when those same people who spout that turn around and say homosexuality is a choice.
@Tab: There is already a lawsuit filed on CA behalf concerning prop h8. I honestly don't think they will win though because overturning an amendment to the state constitution is a very overwhelming undertaking and we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. The majority does not have the right to violate the rights of others.
And 6 states have legalized it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:54 pm
Shiori Miko Why would you need to prove that it isn't a choice? I was under the impression we had the right of choice as well. confused *shrugs* Some weird stuff about how if it's a choice, it's not covered as a fundamental human right that you get to marry. Making the choice waivers the right to marriage, or something like that. I dunno, the whole debate is kinda silly really. @Slamuel: Correction, you punch them in the nose. Talking to them is pointless. @Vaja: No, it's as religious as ever. One thing religions will never do is let go of their playthings, like a spoilt child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Marriage is a pretty religious thing. I don't think you need to be part of the religion to be part of the marriage, but marriage is a religious thing.
Now don't try to argue that. Because marriage is a religious thing. It really isn't up for arguement.
The union of a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is not neccessarily equivalent to marriage. Marriage might be a religious thing, but it has many secular obligations, and is regulated by the government. Divorce laws, property transfer, and the like are all things the government regulates under the term "marriage".
The problem is that we treat a union and marriage as the same thing. I do not agree that gays and lesbians can get married, and many religions do not accept that either. Remember that marriage is religious, right? The problem in this scenario happens to be those that want religion in the government. Marriage is a religious thing, and it should be ONLY a religious thing, not a secular thing. The term marriage should be bumped down and made equal to civil unions. Civil unions currently do not have the same amount of rights as marriages.
Now, some of you might not even live in an area that has civil unions. Oh well, that needs to change. If a gay couple is going to be together, they deserve the recognition that they earn only through marriage. Marriage should only be considered different from civil unions by the churches. All people that are married should be considered under a civil union, and the process of "holy matrimony" should be dealt with by your religious institution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
