They can't, except for some classic examples of tortured logic with holes big enough to drive a truck through.
But if we are to base marriage law only on Judeo-Christian principles then we must ban divorce for any reason other than adultery and we must deny a marriage license to anyone who has been divorced.
But if we are to base marriage only on the principle of procreation and traditional family than we must deny marriage licenses to the infertile and elderly. We must stop legal recognition of single parent families. We must outlaw birth control - otherwise marriage would be invalid.
Edit: Blue, the people in the majority do not have a right to strip the minority of equal protection under the law. If a marriage license granted no legal rights, benfits or protections then there would be no issue. But there are over 1000 that come with a marriage license. So the choice is to either grant the right to all of the people or none of the people. One group cannot reserve the right to themselves and deny it to others, even when the first group is the majority. That's why we have courts and that's why they rule as they do on this issue and others like it.
Edit: Brad, Brown V Board of education was unusual in that overturned previously upheld doctrine. But it was a fully constitutional decision. They found that separate was inherently unequal (and it manifestly was). The only thing that made the decision 'activist' was the order to desegregate with all deliberate speed. And again this not unconstitutional, just unusual. The court has established its right to review law, to set remedies and enforce its orders beginning with Marbury v Madison and the Marshall Court. 200 years of established precedent defines what the constitution means, not the casual reader of the document today.Anti-gay marriage folks, how do you reconcile your position with the principles of the constitution?
You're playing with the language.
There is no such thing as ';civil marriage.'; By definition, marriage is a church matter. The word has come to be popularly used to describe civil unions as well.
I'm sure you can find a church to marry you to whomever or whatever you like
It is a matter of law that the federal government cannot establish civil institutions AT ALL. Civil marriage is NOT a federal institution but since states will differ on it, Congress has authority to define it for interstate recognition purposes ONLY. In other words, your state can do it and other states have to recognize it if, and only if Congress so declares.
Anyway, there is no separate institution NOW. Compare me to a hypothetical man demographically identical but gay. Both of us have EXACTLY the same restrictions on who we can and cannot marry. The SAME law applies in exactly the SAME way without regard for our preferences.
There is no difference in a religious or civil marriage under the law. The only difference is the location of the wedding. Both religious and civil marriage requires state licenses and many of these states have their own requirements. This is not a federal issue. The only reason gay marriage people want to make it a federal issue is because that way it would be out of the peoples hands and put it into the hands of liberal judges. Every state that had gay marriage on its ballot has been defeated. Even in California. This the same procedure the pro-choice people used to get abortion illegalize. I believe that marriage belongs to the people and people sholuld have the right to vote on it.
If marriage between two consenting adults is constitutionally protected, on what basis do you deny it to a consenting brother and sister? Do you deny it to them because it's icky? On what basis do we deny it to more than two people, if marriage is constitutionally protected?
The answer is simple. The constitution is not clear on this.
Simple:
If the Founding Fathers had meant for gay marriage to be in the Constitution, they would have put it there.
However, what they did put in the Constitution was Article 10, The Reserved Powers. This states that any Powers not designated to the Federal Government were the domain of the States. Therefore, I will rest quite well at night knowing that even though the Founding Fathers never dreamed of this, they would have been quite content to let the States decide this issue.
The two ideas simply can't reconcile under the Constitution because they are completely contradictory.
Even the argument that the states should be able to decide is weak because the US Constitution mandates equal protection under the law and the full faith and credit clause requires states to honor judgments and contracts (i.e. marriages) made in other states. Furthermore, the Constitution supersedes state law.
Anti-gay marriage folks don't use logic, they use emotion, religion, homophobia, and bigotry to defend their position so don't expect a rational and logical response from them.
Marriage is a biblical term, and is clearly defined as a union between a man and a women. Were it not for the bible, the word marriage would not exist.
I would say the anser is pretty simple. Goverments should have the power to recognize unions, however marriage, being religous, should not fall under their jurisdiction.
';But civil marriage is a federal institution';
Really? Let's see a fedaral marriage license please.
I don't have to reconcile anything to know that the gov't establishing a right to gay marriage would certainly not be per the Constitution.
They have exactly the same rights as any other American
They are seeking exceptional rights beyond what anyone else has.
But, don't worry. The Constitution explicitly grants the states the right to decide the issue via the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Good for you Dan. That is the most rational coherent argument for gay marriage I have heard yet. Unfortunately, there are not many people on either side of the aisle who cherish our Constitution like I and it appears you do.
opponents of gay marriage really think they will be able to deny americans basic rights because they personally think it's icky.
they need to grow up a tad.
Marriage isn't a federal issue anyway. It's a state issue.
selective constitutional principles
Take it easy Dan. If you want to marry your boyfriend go ahead.
The Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution, were highly educated, and especially knowledgeable about the history of great civilizations. They were keenly aware of the cycle of birth of the nation, growth, riches, degeneracy, war (repeat a few times). At a last stage before the end of a society, there is a general acceptance first, of sexual ';freedom'; or a disintegration of marriage - (which is only between a man and a woman). The children of the generation that puts self over family, community and country turns to self-love, which quickly segues to homosexuality. This is universally followed by either civil war and/or attack by barbarian societies, resulting in the death and enslavement of millions, and the end of liberty. There are no exceptions to this cycle.
The wise patriots put into place, and frequently commented on the need to follow Biblical, Judeo-Christian policies. One common theme was that they were setting up a government that was only strong enough to rule moral, religious peoples. Their commentary and personal beliefs are easily found all over their writings, both public and private.
Gay ';marriage'; is in direct conflict with the beliefs and principles of the founders of the nation and the writers of the Constitution. There are those who have deceived themselves into believing that ';legal'; is the same as correct. Unfortunately, they have managed to dupe a few activist judges, too. But the majority of people all over the world, not just in America, are not fooled by the lies.
Good question but unfortunately you will not get an intelligent answer. People are just going to spout out religious dogma instead of legal reality. Of course I find it funny that the same people who say the Bible states homosexuality is wrong also ignore that the Bible also states to stone disobedient children and that menstruating women can't go to church!
In the 1967 supreme court case Loving v Virginia, Chief Justice Warren wrote, ';The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.';
Brown v. Board of Education was not a constitutional decision, as was admitted by the justices on the Supreme Court. They said that they were making ';new law'; for a ';new day.'; Obviously, racial discrimination needed to end and I personally have no problem with violating the Constitution in order to end injustice.
Furthermore, it is absolutely clear that the Constitution does not grant a right to gay marriage. Gay marriage undeniably should be legalized, but it is not constitutionally mandated.
This is the same type of fuzzy constitutional logic which can lead to absurd claims such as that the government can violate freedom of speech by banning pornography. It is the same type of logic which can lead to absurd claims, such as the claim that involuntary military servitude (the ';draft';) is constitutional.
The Constitution does not grant a right to gay marriage. However, I am in favor of amending the Constitution to define marriage as a union between 2 or more persons, which would grant end all marriage discrimination.
comparing marriage to discrimation because of race/color, really simular when talking about sexual preference. You've should have brought up Clinton's ';Don't Ask Don't Tell';
they should not have the same ';rights'; as legally married man and woman...let them have their ';contract';, but they should not have the same rights...
No comments:
Post a Comment