answered question
answers (6)
Why should any kind of marriage be legal?
By this I mean, why have the State enforce a particular type of contractual relationship? Any two people can choose to live together, to create mutual dependencies, and to adopt children. (pretty much). The argument has been made that civil unions can have the same legal status as marriage. But if so, why have a separate legal category?
My feeling is that Marriage is a contract with cultural and social significance. Many people ground this significance in their own religious tradition, though it comes from several different traditions. If that is the case, the State should probably not even be in the business of conducting or enforcing marriage. At most, marriage would be one way that the State would acknowledge a legal union, but wouldn't be seen as any different than anything else.
However, if the State does take a role, then the State is responsible for ensuring that Marriage does not favor any particular religious viewpoint. Since the definition of marriage as "between a man and a women" comes entirely from a religious point of view, the State cannot, within the bounds of Constitution (properly understood) apply this limitation to the concept.
By this I mean, why have the State enforce a particular type of contractual relationship? Any two people can choose to live together, to create mutual dependencies, and to adopt children. (pretty much). The argument has been made that civil unions can have the same legal status as marriage. But if so, why have a separate legal category?
My feeling is that Marriage is a contract with cultural and social significance. Many people ground this significance in their own religious tradition, though it comes from several different traditions. If that is the case, the State should probably not even be in the business of conducting or enforcing marriage. At most, marriage would be one way that the State would acknowledge a legal union, but wouldn't be seen as any different than anything else.
However, if the State does take a role, then the State is responsible for ensuring that Marriage does not favor any particular religious viewpoint. Since the definition of marriage as "between a man and a women" comes entirely from a religious point of view, the State cannot, within the bounds of Constitution (properly understood) apply this limitation to the concept.
I could say the good old joke of. "So they can be as miserable as the rest of us." LOL
But seriously I don't see why they shouldn't. If I never get married because I choose not to then is that the same thing? Or choosing to be single or not to have kids. They are all choices that anyone can make and not be told you have to or can't.
But seriously I don't see why they shouldn't. If I never get married because I choose not to then is that the same thing? Or choosing to be single or not to have kids. They are all choices that anyone can make and not be told you have to or can't.
Marriage is a civil right bound deeply into our legal system. By denying gay couples legally-recognized marriage, their legal status is questionable in any number of situations. For instance, who has the right to tell someone to terminate life support, your long estranged, deeply neurotic sister, or the man with whom you've been living for 30 years? Who should get military death benefits?
Marriage as a religious institution can be dealt with as the religion sees fit. But the rights of people should not be denied by the state (that's the macro "state", not any particular state). Making gay marriage legal clarifies the status of individuals in a nation of laws.
Finally, it harms no one. Whether someone loves Stephen or Stephanie neither "breaks my back nor picks my pocket" (1). Love whom you will, and be happy.
Marriage as a religious institution can be dealt with as the religion sees fit. But the rights of people should not be denied by the state (that's the macro "state", not any particular state). Making gay marriage legal clarifies the status of individuals in a nation of laws.
Finally, it harms no one. Whether someone loves Stephen or Stephanie neither "breaks my back nor picks my pocket" (1). Love whom you will, and be happy.
source(s):
1) Thomas Jefferson
1) Thomas Jefferson
Simple reason: Because it's gender discrimination to not allow males to marry men when women can, and to not allow women to marry women when men can.
In a democracy, laws are determined by the citizens.
If the citizens want homosexual marriage to be legal then it should be legal.
If the citizens do not want homosexual marriage to be legal then it should not be legal.
This is how a democracy works.
I am very disturbed that a small group of U.S. citizens (in California) were protesting the fact that a larger group U.S. citizens legally voted as their consciences dictated.
Do the protesters realize that they are protesting against democracy?
With love in Christ.
If the citizens want homosexual marriage to be legal then it should be legal.
If the citizens do not want homosexual marriage to be legal then it should not be legal.
This is how a democracy works.
I am very disturbed that a small group of U.S. citizens (in California) were protesting the fact that a larger group U.S. citizens legally voted as their consciences dictated.
Do the protesters realize that they are protesting against democracy?
With love in Christ.
This is irrelevant because the US is not a pure democracy. If it was, interracial marriage would never have become legal, as it became legal when most of the country was against it. That's just one example.
The US has many democratic elements, but there are also 'checks and balances' to protect minorities from a tyrannical majority.
Might does not make right.
The US has many democratic elements, but there are also 'checks and balances' to protect minorities from a tyrannical majority.
Might does not make right.
Under the14th amendment, all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Notice the part about under the law. There is no mention of religions, who are not required to treat people equally and would still be able to choose not to recognize gay marriage. If certain classes of people are singled out by the state, then equality has not been achieved. This was the reasoning that broke the barriers against interracial marriage involving white persons in the Supreme Court Case, Loving v. Virginia.
Suppose the state banned marriage to all left-handed people because a prominent religion believed that lefties will undermine our culture and values. Is that a compelling enough reason for the state to write laws against lefties tying the knot, when religions are still free to take or leave the recognition?
And no, this does not mean polygamy must then be legalized. ALL people are included in the ban against polygamy, not just certain people. Constitutionally, the difference is crucial, while again not changing anything in the religious arena.
The legality of gay marriage was decided when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. However, state legislators are not usually known for being the swiftest of bodies, in all meanings of the word.
Suppose the state banned marriage to all left-handed people because a prominent religion believed that lefties will undermine our culture and values. Is that a compelling enough reason for the state to write laws against lefties tying the knot, when religions are still free to take or leave the recognition?
And no, this does not mean polygamy must then be legalized. ALL people are included in the ban against polygamy, not just certain people. Constitutionally, the difference is crucial, while again not changing anything in the religious arena.
The legality of gay marriage was decided when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. However, state legislators are not usually known for being the swiftest of bodies, in all meanings of the word.
source(s):
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Loving v. Virginia
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Amendment XIV
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Loving v. Virginia
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Amendment XIV
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
