Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[CloudStrife]

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.

Marrying close relatives can be banned on the basis that inbreeding can lead to birth defects. This, of course, assumes we actually care about unborns/newborns, which doesn't seem to be the case nowadays.

 

[nate223]

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

Yes and no. The state has allowed and continued to allow churches to perform ceremonies for homosexuals. You could argue that that's a right, might be, should be. A tax break for being married is NOT a right. Marriage exists as two institutions, one of the church, and one of the state. The former is a first amendment issue, and the latter is not, as it is simply a legal creation of the state.

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

*Facepalm* I think we all know that what I mean. You don't have to graduate college, you just have to be over 65. I was referring to the 20 year-old who's low on cash, not your grandma.

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

But that's an assertion. How so? How is the legal benefit given to married heterosexual couples a different thing than a legal benefit given to those over 16? It's not.

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.

"No where in the constitution is public education guaranteed..." But it wasn't about public education, it was about guaranteeing equal access to an institution. It could have been a case involving two Wal-marts segregated on the basis of race. The point was that segregation is prohibited under the privileges and immunities clause. I'd have to go back and read Brown, but I think the Court will more willingly follow Slaughter-House than Brown in dealing with Prop 8.

 

[D-DAY]

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.

Oh, I agree. That's why if you go back and read my other posts in this thread you will see that I attacked this thing from a scientific perspective all along. I know what the Good Book says about these things and my faith lies with that, but why muddy the waters with religious dogma. Most people here already know where Christianity (and Islam for that matter) stands with respect to this issue, so why do we keep beating that horse.

 

[CEHollier]

I hate to state the obvious but look at how humans are designed both physically and psychologically. As a general rule women’s strengths are men’s weakness. And women’s weakness is men’s strengths. I'm speaking in generalities. The house hold things my wife enjoys and has the patience to do I detest. The thing I enjoy (fixing, repairing, and tinkering) she does not enjoy or cannot physically do. Therefore we are designed as a couple to strengthen and complement each other. As a result we are a much more rounded harmonious family unit.

Another obvious observation is our sex organs. Their primary purpose is for reproduction. That is what they were designed to do. IMHO the fun part of sex was put there to ensure replenishment of the species. Homosexual sex can never accomplish this goal. Every body part has a specific function for which it was designed. Homosexual sex defies what these organs were intended for. I am not here to debate if there is a God or sin. If we have a creator homosexuals are defying his plan. If we are merely a result of natural selection of cosmic matter then homosexuals are defying nature. In other words their acts are "unnatural" I realize I'm off topic but reading some of the posts I just wanted to state what was obvious to me. Flame Away...

 

[CloudStrife]

I hate to state the obvious but look at how humans are designed both physically and psychologically. As a general rule women’s strengths are men’s weakness. And women’s weakness is men’s strengths. I'm speaking in generalities. The house hold things my wife enjoys and has the patience to do I detest. The thing I enjoy (fixing, repairing, and tinkering) she does not enjoy or cannot physically do. Therefore we are designed as a couple to strengthen and complement each other. As a result we are a much more rounded harmonious family unit.

Another obvious observation is our sex organs. Their primary purpose is for reproduction. That is what they were designed to do. IMHO the fun part of sex was put there to ensure replenishment of the species. Homosexual sex can never accomplish this goal. Every body part has a specific function for which it was designed. Homosexual sex defies what these organs were intended for. I am not here to debate if there is a God or sin. If we have a creator homosexuals are defying his plan. If we are merely a result of natural selection of cosmic matter then homosexuals are defying nature. In other words their acts are "unnatural" I realize I'm off topic but reading some of the posts I just wanted to state what was obvious to me. Flame Away...

Yes, it is unnatural, but if we ban things on that basis, we should also ban infertile couples, couples that don't want kids, and all actions that a man and a woman do that don't reproduce. I know in some places certain sexual acts are technically illegal even though no one enforces those laws.

In many gay couples (my experience is limited here since I've rarely met gay people. This is mostly what I've heard.) one person has a feminine role while the other has a masculine role. Even in straight people, some men are more feminine and do what we consider feminine jobs while some women are just the opposite.

 

[oleheat]

I hate to state the obvious but look at how humans are designed both physically and psychologically. As a general rule women’s strengths are men’s weakness. And women’s weakness is men’s strengths. I'm speaking in generalities. The house hold things my wife enjoys and has the patience to do I detest. The thing I enjoy (fixing, repairing, and tinkering) she does not enjoy or cannot physically do. Therefore we are designed as a couple to strengthen and complement each other. As a result we are a much more rounded harmonious family unit.

Another obvious observation is our sex organs. Their primary purpose is for reproduction. That is what they were designed to do. IMHO the fun part of sex was put there to ensure replenishment of the species. Homosexual sex can never accomplish this goal. Every body part has a specific function for which it was designed. Homosexual sex defies what these organs were intended for. I am not here to debate if there is a God or sin. If we have a creator homosexuals are defying his plan. If we are merely a result of natural selection of cosmic matter then homosexuals are defying nature. In other words their acts are "unnatural" I realize I'm off topic but reading some of the posts I just wanted to state what was obvious to me. Flame Away...

Yes, I'd have to agree- to me, it's as obvious as The Sun. As for the original question, I suppose the answer is "it depends on who you ask." I'm fairly certain Elton John would give you a different answer than I would.....
As gun owners, we know all too well that there will ALWAYS be an arguement when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional rights- even when an issue is "decided" in court.

 

[CloudStrife]

As gun owners, we know all too well that there will ALWAYS be an arguement when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional rights- even when an issue is "decided" in court.

Unless we're talking about global warming. The science is settled on that you know.

 

[oleheat]

Unless we're talking about global warming. The science is settled on that you know.

Hey- that's right. The evidence is clear, and anyone who says it isn't is an ignorant, neocon, redneck philistine who probably drives an SUV and finances terrorism.
Can I get a "Whooooa Algore"?
Hello?
Is this thing on?

 

[senseiturtle]

If this is a religious / morality discussion, then that's one thing. If this is a legal discussion, it's another. Again, we cannot legislate morality.

"Against God's Will" is an invalid argument for the legal aspect.
1) Do you think a Judge would subpoena YHWH for his expert opinion, rather than relying on third-hand knowledge passed in writing?
2) What if the participants outright reject your notion of God, and substitute their own? Should they be held accountable to their God? If not, then why yours? Should I be held accountable to the Qu'ran if the prosecuter just so happens to be Muslim?
3) Let's leave the judgement to the only One entitled to judge.

Other legal restrictions on relationships tend to have better reasons for their existence.
1) Children cannot marry under the age of consent for health, developmental, judgement, and prevention of crime reasons.
2) People cannot marry their brothers/sisters because of devastating genetic conditions, complicated inheritance and social issues.
3) Etc. Etc.

This entire conversation is RIPE for a basic logical fallacy, the "slippery slope" argument.
1) Just because we allow two men to marry, doesn't mean we will take the proposed "next step", and allow man to marry animal.

The second logical fallacy in play is the "straw man."
1) The gay community wants to engage in the institution of marriage, not obliterate it.
2) Any attempts to characterize this movement as something more extreme is incorrect.

---------------------------
Now, I'll apply 2 logical fallacies for the purposes of thought and ask a rhetorical question - If you should deny two consenting, intelligent males to marry, then what about every other possible human relationship? Should two Down's individuals, male and female, be able to marry, in spite of almost 100% probability of handicapped children?
-----------------------------

The original question - Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional ?
The literal answer is "unknown," as it is not directly specified, and would require examination of the definition of "rights." Do you actually have a "Right" to marry? In the spirit of the constitution, then gay marriage should be legalized, IMO.

===========================================
If you really want to "protect the institution of marriage," then make divorce illegal. One marriage per person over the entire lifetime, as an irrevocable, permanent, binding contract... with no expiration dates and no "bailout" clauses.
=============================================

 

[CEHollier]

Yes, it is unnatural, but if we ban things on that basis, we should also ban infertile couples, couples that don't want kids, and all actions that a man and a woman do that don't reproduce. I know in some places certain sexual acts are technically illegal even though no one enforces those laws.

In many gay couples (my experience is limited here since I've rarely met gay people. This is mostly what I've heard.) one person has a feminine role while the other has a masculine role. Even in straight people, some men are more feminine and do what we consider feminine jobs while some women are just the opposite.

The point is many heterosexual married people do not want their institution defiled by homosexual marriages. This may be to religious, personal, or other reasons. IMHO it cheapens and degrades heterosexual marriage. They percieve it as an attack on marriage.

 

[CloudStrife]

The point is many heterosexual married people do not want their institution defiled by homosexual marriages. This may be to religious, personal, or other reasons. IMHO it cheapens and degrades heterosexual marriage. They percieve it as an attack on marriage.

Do sexual deviants defile sex for a married couple? Do murderers reduce the value of life for all people? Does one man's greed make your efforts to earn a living greedy? There plenty of immoral acts, some legal, some not, but none of them affect my values.

 

[CEHollier]

Do sexual deviants defile sex for a married couple? Do murderers reduce the value of life for all people? Does one man's greed make your efforts to earn a living greedy? There plenty of immoral acts, some legal, some not, but none of them affect my values.

You prove my point. Greed and murder are unacceptable behavior to society and there are laws to control it. Thank you.

 

[Cat]

I think what pain man is trying to say is that legalizing it degrades the importance of his marriage. Murder is not condoned and therefore not generally "accepted".

I have stated that I do not believe it removes the importance of my own relationship with my husband but I understand why Charles feels that way. It's an affront to his spirituality.

We can argue the validity of constitutional amendments but we can't, or shouldn't, disagree with each others faith.

Hope I didn't put words in your mouth too much Charles.

 

[CEHollier]

I think what pain man is trying to say is that legalizing it degrades the importance of his marriage. Murder is not condoned and therefore not generally "accepted".

I have stated that I do not believe it removes the importance of my own relationship with my husband but I understand why Charles feels that way. It's an affront to his spirituality.

We can argue the validity of constitutional amendments but we can't, or shouldn't, disagree with each others faith.

Hope I didn't put words in your mouth too much Charles.

You didn't Cat.

I'm not speaking for just myselve. Most states have voted gay marriage down.

 

[CloudStrife]

You prove my point. Greed and murder are unacceptable behavior to society and there are laws to control it. Thank you.

There are laws to keep people from harming others. There is no law against hating everyone. There is no law against hording every dime you have and laughing at homeless people. There is no law against a man banging every woman he can. There is no law against adultery. There is no law against divorce. Etc etc etc

 

[CloudStrife]

You didn't Cat.

I'm not speaking for just myselves. Most states have voted gay marriage down.

This would probably be less of an issue if the gay community didn't have this "in your face" attitude and being married didn't have tax benefits.

 

[CEHollier]

There are laws to keep people from harming others. There is no law against hating everyone. There is no law against hording every dime you have and laughing at homeless people. There is no law against a man banging every woman he can. There is no law against adultery. There is no law against divorce. Etc etc etc

I don't hate anyone. In your origional post you likened homosexuality to murder and greed. Both of which are deviant behavior. So your using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior.

 

[CloudStrife]

I don't hate anyone. In your origional post you likened homosexuality to murder and greed. Both of which are deviant behavior. So your using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior.

I wasn't justifying it. I was making the point that one person's behavior has no effect on someone else's values.

What value does a legal status contribute to your marriage?

 

[oleheat]

This would probably be less of an issue if the gay community didn't have this "in your face" attitude and being married didn't have tax benefits.

You are probably correct. But (no pun intended)- IMHO, I believe many people are also sick & tired of the pro-GM crowd screaming how they demand "tolerance", yet they themselves are very INTOLERANT when it comes to dealing with those who have an opposing view.

Anybody remember the Miss California fiasco with that disgusting individual (my opinion) Perez Hilton?? That girl got raked over the coals by that jerk and others because she had the courage to say what the great majority believes. Yeah- that's tolerance for ya. People are tired of all the PC crap.

 

[CEHollier]

I wasn't justifying it. I was making the point that one person's behavior has no effect on someone else's values.

Sir, you are wrong on that point. Just look at the prostitute prevelant drug infested inner city neighborhoods. Children growing up in that environment have a slim chance at the white collar world. We are product of both our genetics and our environment.