Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[Woods]

Yeah, we have seem to have a different point of view, & that's okay....On the family issue, if we're talking a family that involves children (which I'm sure we are), if you were to ask me MY idea of the "ideal" immediate American Family, it would consist of a father who lives there, a mother, and the children. A woman can't replace a father, nor can a man replace a mother. Anything else would be a compromise to me. I know that there are many exceptions to this rule- broken homes, etc.- but I believe this is the BEST scenario for the developement of productive members of society. I also believe it's a sad thing that the idea of the traditional family isn't as common as it once was. IMHO, same-sex marriage trivializes the American family. But again- just my opinion.

The family like anything else is flexible and depends on circumstance. Depending on the biological father, sometimes the best solution is for the father to be removed from the rest of the family. In such instances, the family unit is stronger for having had the biological father removed from it... ala a situation I'm familiar with via my brother-in-law.

I think we can agree that the most stable, viable configuration for any given family is ideal... and because people can differ greatly, so can the makeup of a stable family.

To answer the original question, depending on one's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, no law can be made which applies to a particular group of individuals and not to others. So I'd have to say that singling out a class of people (homosexuals in this case) for denial of a legal privilege is unconstituional. Again, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, just my humble opinion.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th 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

 

[Woods]

I haven't heard of anyone who's done that other than to skirt immigration laws (which I am against doing) but I'm sure it's happened. The difference is it's currently allowed for a man and a woman to marry.

Again, if it came to a vote, are you for it or against it? Why are we still discussing anything else?

Anecdotal, peronal experience... so take it for what it's worth...

A guy connected to my family was enlisted in the Army... and got married solely to collect the additional pay. I know that because he bragged about it and kept girlfriends in addtion. He promptly got divorced after his discharge.

 

[flamatrix99]

Anecdotal, peronal experience... so take it for what it's worth...

A guy connected to my family was enlisted in the Army... and got married solely to collect the additional pay. I know that because he bragged about it and kept girlfriends in addtion. He promptly got divorced after his discharge.

I saw that in the navy as well.

My wife's ex husband got a quack doc to sign off so he can get disability. Now this is the same guy that hasn't had a job in at least 10 or 15 years but he works in bars/clubs as a bouncer under the table and he has renovated parts of the house they live in.

He also didn't pay child support for a long time. My wife finally got fed up with him and took him to court. We got two years of his new wife's Federal and state tax refunds (she had a job back then) and thier stimulus check from Bush Jr. I think the state was going after his driver's license and he finally paid it all off. All total was ~$30,000.

 

[charliepapa]

I saw that in the navy as well.

Yeah, and the navy marriages were same-sex; right?

 

[Cat]

1) We cannot legislate morality. Injustice, perhaps... but not morality.

2) Denying another individual his/her rights based on individual religious convictions is morally wrong. Fundamentalism and intolerance are what breeds hate. Just because someone attaches the name "Jesus" to something, or selects random supportive bible verses (usually out of context), does not allow us to accept the statement carte blanche.

I personally believe that bible-based fundamentalism is equally as dangerous as qua'ran-based fundamentalism.

3) Tuberculosis is not spread by anal sex. While we're on the topic, anal sex does not spread any disease that cannot be spread by regular sex. The homosexual community becomes a breeding ground for disease when it's members behave with unchecked promiscuity, in the same manner a cheap hooker in a brothel does.

It does, however, lead to significant trauma of the (much thinner) anal canal. This has its own set of problems. Sure, anal sex may be a more effective means of transmission of HIV than straight sex, but shared IV drugs take the cake. Those are already illegal, so I guess nobody does that anymore, right?

4) Let's try peer-reviewed sources for our medical information, and not "catholiceducation.org", which has enough bias to go around. Sure, an M.D. wrote that article, but that doesn't mean he isn't attempting to deliver a message.

For example.. Cryptosporidium, Giardia Lamblia, Isospora, Microsporidia are all micro-organisms which are transmitted by fecal-oral route. To attribute their spread solely to anal sex is a huge stretch. You're far, far, far more likely to get any one of those by drinking contaminated water... specifically, not boiling your collected water on a camping trip. The anal sex partner who gave you giardia is likely on the verge of dehydration from the cholera-like diarrhea it causes, in which case it might not be the most opportune time to have anal sex anyways.

Look it up yourself.

---------------

/ I am not gay.
// I am catholic, which may not count as "christian" to some.
/// Everyone needs to be much more discriminating when it comes to their sources of information. People DO have agendas.

My personal opinion: Let the gays marry. It may encourage monogamy among them. They can be just as miserable as the straights when it comes to taxes, divorce, alimony, etc.

I will not judge them for their behavior, as I do not wish God to judge me for mine.

I agree with this. I feel it is the lifestyle that many gay men create that allows for rampant HIV/AIDS infection. Bath houses anybody? It's not homosexuality that made the monster. It was, and always has been and will continue to be, unsafe sex.

What someone else does in their relationship doesn't remove the sanctity in my own.

 

[charlie12]

I saw that in the navy as well.

My wife's ex husband got a quack doc to sign off so he can get disability. Now this is the same guy that hasn't had a job in at least 10 or 15 years but he works in bars/clubs as a bouncer under the table and he has renovated parts of the house they live in.

He also didn't pay child support for a long time. My wife finally got fed up with him and took him to court. We got two years of his new wife's Federal and state tax refunds (she had a job back then) and thier stimulus check from Bush Jr. I think the state was going after his driver's license and he finally paid it all off. All total was ~$30,000.

We have a guy that delivers papers with us that is "disabled". Got all the handicapped crap on his truck riding around with a chair in the back. Has his route in his wife's name "she's never done papers".
But he works 365 nights a year loading carts, pulling pallet jacks and delivering heavy bundles of papers for his route and his daughter's route.

And he loads my carts.

 

[charliepapa]

This is like nailing jello to a wall...

The question wasn't about morality or disease or judging others. The question is: Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

It seems to me that the answer is N/A as it appears to be up to each state. 99% of the posts in this thread (including mine) are irrelevant because they're only opinion.

Is anyone here schooled in constitutional law?

.

 

[charliepapa]

We have a guy that delivers papers with us that is "disabled". Got all the handicapped crap on his truck riding around with a chair in the back. Has his route in his wife's name "she's never done papers".
But he works 365 nights a year loading carts, pulling pallet jacks and delivering heavy bundles of papers for his route and his daughter's route.

And he loads my carts.

Who does the thieving bastard recieve disability payments from? Shoot a short video of him in action and send it in.

 

[CEHollier]

This thread is so much fun. Lets start an abortion one...

 

[flamatrix99]

Who does the thieving bastard recieve disability payments from? Shoot a short video of him in action and send it in.

Social Security.. Deductions from our paychecks go to these people but that is yet another topic... But I think we all agree on that one...

 

[CloudStrife]

How about no benefits for marriage period? Instead let's just have a flat tax for everyone. Or, better yet, replace income tax with a sales tax. Nooooo, that would make too much sense.

 

[Paul Gomez]

This thread is so much fun. Lets start an abortion one...

Awesome.

 

[nate223]

To answer the original question, depending on one's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, no law can be made which applies to a particular group of individuals and not to others. So I'd have to say that singling out a class of people (homosexuals in this case) for denial of a legal privilege is unconstituional. Again, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, just my humble opinion.

But we do this all the time. We deny the same rights to some people that we give to others. A college dropout can't collect social security, a twelve year-old can't drive on the interstate, I can't marry my cousin. We're talking about tax benefits, not about inalienable rights. The state may choose to recognize certain relationships and not others.

As to the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it's not the case that the 14th is the clear constitutional prohibition of a gay marriage ban. As Justice Thomas notes, the Framers understood that the SCOTUS had not yet "undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities." This was left to the Court's interpretation.

Here's what the court has done with that: The Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment's so called "Privileges or Immunities Clause" has been extremely conservative. It has been the position of the court that this clause refers to some Bill of Rights guarantees, if any. Justice Miller, in what has probably been the most direct address of the doctrine in it's history, the Slaughter-House case, said that it applied to such basic freedoms as the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. It would be a stretch to say that it extends to the legal definition of marriage, and the court has attempted no such definition - yet.

So, to answer the question "Is a ban on gay marriage constitutional?": I think that an objection on the grounds of the 14th is unlikely to persuade the court, and so the Court will have to provide a definition. It's likely that marriage will fall outside the bounds of such a definition. One thing's certain, you can't point to the record of the court and say that the 14th clearly prohibits a ban on gay marriage.

 

[missingAZ]

very few things the government does and very few laws the government creates is constitutional in a strict constitutional sense. using the law of averages a gay marriage ban is probably unconstitional. so lets make a deal, repeal the NFA and I'll support gay marriage. hell I'll support a holiday that buys gay couples a coffee at starbucks, all homos/liberals like starbucks right?

 

[charliepapa]

But we do this all the time. We deny the same rights to some people that we give to others. A college dropout can't collect social security, a twelve year-old can't drive on the interstate, I can't marry my cousin. We're talking about tax benefits, not about inalienable rights. The state may choose to recognize certain relationships and not others.

Yeah, what he said!

 

[CloudStrife]

But we do this all the time. We deny the same rights to some people that we give to others. A college dropout can't collect social security, a twelve year-old can't drive on the interstate, I can't marry my cousin. We're talking about tax benefits, not about inalienable rights. The state may choose to recognize certain relationships and not others.

Social security and driving aren't rights. Marriage, or any relationship, is a right.

I think all marriages, from a legal stand point, should be treated like contracts. Party A is bound in legal and financial matters to Party B. As long as both parties understand the terms and willingly agree, nothing else matters. Rupaul can marry E.T. if they choose. Whatever. And they can file for divorce 2 days later.

I think one of reasons some are opposed to gay marriage is that they feel by allowing it, our country is condoning it.

To criticism the pro-gay movement, I really don't understand why this is such a big issue. Are they so insecure that they need gov't approval to feel validated? If the tables were turned, sure I'd like to have my relationship recognized, but it certainly wouldn't be at the top of my list. When I get married (some day I hope), it will be between me, my wife, and God. The legal stuff is just a formality. Gov't recognition does not give my marriage any meaning whatsoever.

 

[Woods]

But we do this all the time. We deny the same rights to some people that we give to others. A college dropout can't collect social security, a twelve year-old can't drive on the interstate, I can't marry my cousin. We're talking about tax benefits, not about inalienable rights. The state may choose to recognize certain relationships and not others.

As to the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it's not the case that the 14th is the clear constitutional prohibition of a gay marriage ban. As Justice Thomas notes, the Framers understood that the SCOTUS had not yet "undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities." This was left to the Court's interpretation.

Here's what the court has done with that: The Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment's so called "Privileges or Immunities Clause" has been extremely conservative. It has been the position of the court that this clause refers to some Bill of Rights guarantees, if any. Justice Miller, in what has probably been the most direct address of the doctrine in it's history, the Slaughter-House case, said that it applied to such basic freedoms as the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. It would be a stretch to say that it extends to the legal definition of marriage, and the court has attempted no such definition - yet.

So, to answer the question "Is a ban on gay marriage constitutional?": I think that an objection on the grounds of the 14th is unlikely to persuade the court, and so the Court will have to provide a definition. It's likely that marriage will fall outside the bounds of such a definition. One thing's certain, you can't point to the record of the court and say that the 14th clearly prohibits a ban on gay marriage.

I had no idea you had to graduate college to collect Social Security; I guess my wife's grandma should start returning those checks.

Comparing the driving age requirement to this is like comparing apples to oranges... the two really aren't analogous in anyway.

I also never said it was clear that the 14th amendment prohibits a ban on gay marriage... I merely stated that is how I would interpret the way it is written. No where in the constitution is public education guaranteed... but the Brown v Board of Education was based on the 14th amendment, saying equal protection under the law meant that everybody had to go to school together to guarantee everyone had the same access to education... so I challenge your assertion that SCOTUS has always adopted a conservative view of the 14th amendment's protections, as that seems pretty broad.

Again, just my opinion, which is worth as much as anybody else's here... exactly nothing.

But I have a solution that should work for everyone... if male gay couples would get with lesbian couples, they could marry each other, not have kids, get tax breaks, and there'd be no same-sex marriage.

That way they'd be at least as good as heterosexual people who marry eachother for whatever benefits being married at the time gets them.

 

[XD-GEM]

I don't understand all of the fuss. Gay people absolutely have the right to get married like anyone else - as long as they can find a person of the opposite gender who doesn't mind their sexual proclivities.

 

[D-DAY]

Social security and driving aren't rights. Marriage, or any relationship, is a right.

I think all marriages, from a legal stand point, should be treated like contracts. Party A is bound in legal and financial matters to Party B. As long as both parties understand the terms and willingly agree, nothing else matters. Rupaul can marry E.T. if they choose. Whatever. And they can file for divorce 2 days later.

I think one of reasons some are opposed to gay marriage is that they feel by allowing it, our country is condoning it.

To criticism the pro-gay movement, I really don't understand why this is such a big issue. Are they so insecure that they need gov't approval to feel validated? If the tables were turned, sure I'd like to have my relationship recognized, but it certainly wouldn't be at the top of my list. When I get married (some day I hope), it will be between me, my wife, and God. The legal stuff is just a formality. Gov't recognition does not give my marriage any meaning whatsoever.

You will be opening pandora's box with the contracts idea, but I like the thought process. Not sure the gen. public can stomach you marrying your mother and/or sister.

By allowing gay marriage via. government intervention, we are being forced to condone it. Fighting it would just constitute a hate crime, haha.

Look, the gay agenda is a very forceful one. They have every right offered to a married couple via. civil unions, still they want to push the issue. Why? Because of what I like to call the "Out the Closet Syndrome." In this country, homosexuals were pretty much forced to stay in the closet, living the deviant life in the shadows for fear of being "caught" or "found out." Now, in recent decades, society changed just enough to crack open the closet door to see what was in there and BAM!, the door has come off the hinges. The homosexuals have come out of the closet in droves and they are some kind of bitter. For being in the closet in the first place, but also for the less than open arms welcome they have received from society, who cracked the door open in the first place. So, for the most part, being an intelligent group, they understand that they have to change society if they are ever to be truly accepted. That's why they have pushed so hard for tv time, and movie and news exposure. The more society is exposed to homosexuality the more desensitized it becomes to the issue, till eventually people don't care anymore. But marriage is the one thing that they have decided would be their crowning achievement because it does two very important things. First, it forces society to accept them openly as equals, with all rights, benefits, and privileges therein. And secondly, they get to slap society, and the church, and conservatives, and everyone else who disagrees with their lifestyle, in the face for forcing them to stay in the closet for so long. It's the ultimate 1 up vindication.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CloudStrife]

Look, the gay agenda is a very forceful one. They have every right offered to a married couple via. civil unions, still they want to push the issue. Why? Because of what I like to call the "Out the Closet Syndrome." In this country, homosexuals were pretty much forced to stay in the closet, living the deviant life in the shadows for fear of being "caught" or "found out." Now, in recent decades, society changed just enough to crack open the closet door to see what was in there and BAM!, the door has come off the hinges. The homosexuals have come out of the closet in droves and they are some kind of bitter. For being in the closet in the first place, but also for the less than open arms welcome they have received from society, who cracked the door open in the first place. So, for the most part, being an intelligent group, they understand that they have to change society if they are ever to be truly accepted. That's why they have pushed so hard for tv time, and movie and news exposure. The more society is exposed to homosexuality the more desensitized it becomes to the issue, till eventually people don't care anymore. But marriage is the one thing that they have decided would be their crowning achievement because it does two very important things. First, it forces society to accept them openly as equals, with all rights, benefits, and privileges therein. And secondly, they get to slap society, and the church, and conservatives, and everyone else who disagrees with their lifestyle, in the face for forcing them to stay in the closet for so long. It's the ultimate 1 up vindication.

Just my 2 cents.

People need to learn to differentiate between laws and personal convictions. Divorces are perfectly legal, and God hates divorce according to the Bible. Jesus himself made no attempts to enforce his teachings. Faith is a matter of choice of the individual. Our man-made laws should serve the sole purpose of protecting people from one another (and facilitating organization, programs that benefit all, etc to an extent) , not protecting people from themselves, whether they suffer the consequences in this life or the next.

One thing that really gets on my nerves is the idea, which I think is shared among many homosexuals (not all certainly), is that since they are gay, they are exempt from other sexual morals. Whether being gay is right or wrong, I don't know. However, I am firm on my beliefs of the value that should be given to intimate actions, regardless if the couple is straight or gay.