Do you have the right to get married? Yes, there are certain "privileges that come with that".Originally Posted by maddawg
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have the right to get married? Yes, there are certain "privileges that come with that".
Currently, under DOMA, marriage is definited as a union between one man and one woman.
Now, in order to allow two men or two women to marry, you're going to have to change the definition.
The problem is, if this happens, you've opened a Pandora's Box. Our constitution has a "equal protection" clause. So, if marriage is redefined for homosexuals, then, it follows, it would have to be applied equally to the Polyamorous and to pedophiles and to other seriously grotesque arraingements.
Due to the costs of health insurance, I can see a future marriage/family where I have a job with family insurance coverage, but my sister and bro-in-law do not. I can simply marry them both and cover their family and mine.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a pro-gay marriage Republican. She brought up a very interesting question during the exchange: If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy? Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?
One other thing, if it is decided that this is a civil right, then all churches that hold the bible inviolate, and do not perform gay marriages, can and will be sued. I can see where the bible, or certain sections, will be outlawed.
Which will trump the other, gays' civil right to marriage or the freedom of religion?
Some folks who claim Christianity don't believe the entire Bible is the word of God anyway. They won't have a problem outlawing the parts they don't agree with in the name of "equal rights".
Somebody's gonna have hell to pay. Really.
I'm pretty sure marriage was defined before DOMA came along. Hasn't marriage been defined, historically, in a number of ways? Why does only this definition apply?
Ah, the slippery slope argument. The conservative's answer to everything. I can imagine a time when people said, "if we allow interracial couples to marry...: or "if we allow women to vote..."
We end up with Pelosi as Speaker. The horror of it.
Must have been all those women in the HoR who voted Nancy in as Speaker.
Classic liberal response, don't debate the point. Just make a condescending remark about the speaker. And, I seriously don't like your insinuation that I'm racist or against female suffrage. Argue the point, which is the "Equal Protection" clause as it relates to the definition of marriage.
Also, read the whole post. I intentionally quoted Justice Sotomayor, probably more socialist than you are.
btw, since women's right to vote, 19th Amendment, was mention in the context that Republicans would be against it. (Classic revision of history by liberals.) This amendment was heavily opposed by Woodrow Wilson, a progressive liberal icon.
The Senate, in 1919, passed the amendment. The Ayes were 36 (82%) Republicans and 20 (54%) Democrats.
footnotes: James Ciment, Thaddeus Russell (2007). "The home front encyclopedia: United States, Britain, and Canada in World Wars I and II, Volume 1". p.163. ABC-CLIO, 2007.
Lemons, J. Stanley (1973). "The woman citizen: social feminism in the 1920s" p.13. University of Virginia Press, 1973.
Suffrage Wins in Senate; Now Goes to States. The New York Times. 5 June 1919. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
First of all, this is a ridiculous premise. Pediphiles are breaking the law and hurting someone. They would not be allowed to marry. This is always the big joke of a scare tactic used by those against it. As for following the Bible, who is defining that? There are plenty of churches that believe in equal Gay rights and do not believe it is a sin - anymore than eating shellfish or stoning their neighbor. So, what you are saying is that SOME churches are against it. Let's work on narrowing that down first. Now, if you are going to allow some (probably majority) of churches to dictate who can and cannot be married based on what THEY believe is a sin, shouldn't all sinners be banned from marriage? Hell, we even allow inmates to get married. What test are you going to use to see if someone sinned that day or the previous year? Now, we have it down to no sinners can get married, as definied by some religeous beliefs. If we are going to do that, our country needs to just follow those Church's on other laws, as well, right? So, government and the church are the same - no separation between the two. Only certain religeons and non-sinners (there are none among us) have the right to get married.
I exaggerated the point (not too much, though) for a reason. If the government is going to grant privileges to people that are married, it cannot pick just heterosexuals. It would need to be separated out. How about we do away with government endorsed "marriages" for everyone. Let's give domestic partnership licences through the government and "marriage" would be endorsed by different churches. If your church did not believe in Gay marriage, then they do not have to grant those ceremonies and that name. If they do, you are welcome to be "married".
Now, back to the argument of opening up other types of marriages. Gay persons are different than child molestors or animal abusers. It is a victimless issue. That rules out most of your scenarios able that you are scared to open up. That leaves Polygomists. There is no reason in the world that you could not define marriage as the partnering between TWO consenting adults of sound mind (rules out 1/4 of our current marriages already). That would stop any overflow. The can of worms you are speaking about did not happen when we started allowing inter-racial marriages. There is no reason it would happen with this issue.
I see a lot of ignorance here (not stupidity, so please don't take offense). There is a misunderstanding of what a Gay couple is and is asking. The same ignorance came with interracial marriage. The same came with Black persons in professional sports, the same ignorance came with integrating our military. As we progress as a country, we have to start being a leader in civil rights. That includes rights and privileges afforded by our government to all persons that are law abiding citizens (even if they are in the minority) to be applied to everyone. The fight for Gay rights has come along way and still has a long way to go.
I will state here that I have a Gay son that has been in a relationship now for 8 years. I want him to have every opportunity that is allowed a Straight person. I will fight for him - the same as most of you would do for your children. He works for the state and cannot put his partner on his benefit plan. Unless he makes special arrangments, he will not be the first called if there is any type of accident with his partner in the hospital - they will always call the first of kin. He and his partner cannot share in social security benefits when they retire. A will can take care of most of the other financial concerns. No tax law applies for being married, though. They cannot adopt in Texas; however can in some other states. Even if they did adopt, they have no rights as a couple for that child. The law recognizes it as a single parent. Just a few examples. The other examples are much more subtle. He has to endure "why are you single" all the time. He can't bring his partner to company events. He can't put that picture of his partner on his desk for fear of beng ridiculed or just shunned by many. He can't hold hands walking down he street. Those subtle ways we all have of showing others our love for our partner are missing.
By saying no to marriage equality, we are saying yes to discrimination. We are saying that it is better to endure psychological pain of denying who you are. We are saying that sex outside of marriage is better than letting Gay persons marry. We are saying that only those that we pre-define as non-sinners according to SOME relegions are able to be married in our country.
South Africa (yeah, in the tribal areas) just had their first legal Gay marriage. Should we be like them in all matters? no, but we are falling behind the rest of the world in a country that should be leading the charge for equality for all.
Don't know about what "some churches" are for or against, but God has something to say about what marriage is and what it is about. Has nothing to do with "rights." You seem to miss the point. What a government does by "re-defining" marriage and insisting on others to comply only becomes a platform for putting down the freedom of religion.
You describe a legal issue. God defines a moral issue. Ignorance is the issue with defining things anew. It would be a whole different debate if the issue was a legal path to "equal rights" for confessed sinners to have benefits based upon sexual preference. Becoming married isn't about sin. Debauching a God defined institution given for specific purpose is quite another.
Now, what about this kicker from MTSU>>?
Freedom of WHAT religion? Only yours? Some believe that God/Jesus said nothing about Homosexuality and interpretation has changed that. Do you go by the shellfish rule and do you stone your neighbor's daughter too?
Marriage is based on religion, so it has woven it's way to legal rights. If marriage is based on religion (as it started out), how did we justify no interracial marriage? Did we redifine it or clarify it? The people of that time truly believed it was a sin. Most do not now.
Like it or not, by government giving certain privileges to married couples, it is a legal institution. Even if it were not, many people have a different view of what God stated and what Jesus stated in the New Testiment. So, exanding "marriage" to same gender couples is an expansion of religeous freedom - not a narrowing of it.
As for as the kicker, I am proud of him for breaking down another wall against discrimination.
Why were certain privileges given to traditional married couples? Was it to encourage and provide assistance to the traditional family unit that includes a husband, a wife and CHILDREN? To relieve the financial burden of raising a family, possibly to the point of allowing mothers to be at home with their children where they're needed? Last I checked, homosexuals can't procreate. They have no natural children of their own within their deviant relationships. They don't need or deserve the same privileges given to the traditional family unit.
As for what God says, I think the bible is pretty clear. I, for one, believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, from cover to cover. You can't pick and choose which parts of it fit with your own ideology. When debating the bible, that has to be common ground, or else any conversation is a waste of time. I'm a sinner, just like everyone else, including homosexuals. I don't think my sins are any less or more severe than anyone else's. But I do confess my sins, repent and ask for forgiveness. I don't ask others to accept them as ok, just because they may not hurt anyone else. To me, that's what makes homosexuality different. I believe God will be the final judge, certainly not me, therefore I do my best not to judge.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote