Conneticuit ok's Same-Sex Marriage

[mexitucky]

As serious as one can be discussing homosexual marriage with strangers on a message board.

 

My example is only one of many abuses that can be envisioned by devaluing the instituion of marriage. Many of our laws are based on a man-woman marriage. You can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Society and our laws that govern it have to be changed in order to allow the "normalization" of homosexual marriage.

 

You brought up the slippery slope. What is next? Polygamy? As long as it is with consenting adults we have no right to tell them what to do, right?

 

Possibly, that's another topic. That would depend on whether the religious group that supported polygamy was a quasi-suspect or suspect class (i.e. deserved added governmental protection). I don't believe that the court would touch a faith based question like that, and as there isn't a clearly defined class of individual that would be injured by outlawing polygamy, I couldn't see them instituting it.

 

Speaking of devaluing marriage, have you seen the divorce rates? Have you seen the amount of single-parent families and non-wed mothers??? I'd say that marriage has been very much devalued by heterosexuals.

[Pancake]

It is a (man)ipulation. Get it?

 

Seriously, I used an extreme example to show how long-standing laws can be manipulated because we are attempting to change a society on which the laws are based.

 

Laws are a reflection of society and how the people in that society want to act and have others act.

 

If each, or any, state in this Country wants to make homosexual marriage legal, then that is their right. But, I think the people should have a say in it and not a panel of jurists.

 

This societal change is too wide-sweeping to be left up to a small number of politicians (State SC Justices included) to decide. Let the people decide by changing their state Constitutions to explicitly state who can be involved in a state-recognized marriage.

 

 

Nice... :lol:

 

Anyway, I know a few people who attend my church that are gay and I just don't see what is the big deal with them getting married. Like I said earlier Divorce rate has made marriage a joke now a days.

[mexitucky]

Explain how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society other than those pugnant to your religious views.

1. Will it lead to an increase in crime?

2. Will it lead to an increase in health risks?

3. Will it cause a breakdown in our society?

4. Will it destroy the fabric of American family life?

 

I presented the above questions with the idea to show that if you answer yeah or nay to same-sex marriage, nothing will change? 1. Gay marriage would not lead to an increase in crime. 2. If anything it would lessen health risks in the gay community, as well as increase the # of people insured as oppossed to uninsured which is what raises our premiums. 3. I don't see how it would cause a breakdown that hasn't been caused already. Homosexuals have been part of society for as long as we've had societies. 4. The American family...look at where we are now. Would an ok for gay marriage affect the fact that couples can't stay married and people continue to get pregnant outside of marriage?

 

Again, if you are against it due to your religious beliefs, I support your opinion. I'm not a huge fan either. However, that can't be a reason to invalidate a groups rights.

[cch5432]

Marriage very much is a constitutional right. Read Lovings v. Virginia. While not specifically cited in the Bill of Rights, it has been held that it falls within a person's fundamental Liberty right.

I am going to try to phrase this as delicately as I can.

 

I believe that government should have no role in marriage. The government is finance by taxes, which are forcefully taken from its citizens. The people can either leave the country, or pay taxes- there is no willful giving.

 

That being said, the areas of life that government should be involved in should be limited. Marriage is an institution that should exist only in the churches. People who believe in gay marriage can attend churches that marry gays. People who don't can attend other churches. However, if gay marriage was legalized, I would still have to pay taxes, regardless of my stance on it.

 

I just don't understand what benefit the government receives from encouraging marriage- heterosexual or homosexual. I understand the child-tax credit. But as well as the reasons that I listed above, I won't vote or support to expand an institution that I don't believe that the government has a right to have its hand in.

 

FWIW, I appreciate you coming over to P&R and having a real debate- it is refreshing.

[mexitucky]

It is a (man)ipulation. Get it?

 

Seriously, I used an extreme example to show how long-standing laws can be manipulated because we are attempting to change a society on which the laws are based.

 

Laws are a reflection of society and how the people in that society want to act and have others act.

 

If each, or any, state in this Country wants to make homosexual marriage legal, then that is their right. But, I think the people should have a say in it and not a panel of jurists.

 

This societal change is too wide-sweeping to be left up to a small number of politicians (State SC Justices included) to decide. Let the people decide by changing their state Constitutions to explicitly state who can be involved in a state-recognized marriage.

 

This is the same attitude that allowed slavery to stay in the south for years. (I am in no way insinuating that you support slavery.) It's that attitude that said that it was a crime for a white man to marry a black woman and visa versa. The problem with allowing the majority to decide things is that they vote in the majority interests, and the minority often times has its rights denied.

Edited November 7, 2008 by rockmom
fixed quote

[Pancake]

Explain how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society other than those pugnant to your religious views.

1. Will it lead to an increase in crime?

2. Will it lead to an increase in health risks?

3. Will it cause a breakdown in our society?

4. Will it destroy the fabric of American family life?

 

I presented the above questions with the idea to show that if you answer yeah or nay to same-sex marriage, nothing will change? 1. Gay marriage would not lead to an increase in crime. 2. If anything it would lessen health risks in the gay community, as well as increase the # of people insured as oppossed to uninsured which is what raises our premiums. 3. I don't see how it would cause a breakdown that hasn't been caused already. Homosexuals have been part of society for as long as we've had societies. 4. The American family...look at where we are now. Would an ok for gay marriage affect the fact that couples can't stay married and people continue to get pregnant outside of marriage?

 

 

Again, if you are against it due to your religious beliefs, I support your opinion. I'm not a huge fan either. However, that can't be a reason to invalidate a groups rights.

 

My point exactly.. :thumb:

[mexitucky]

I am going to try to phrase this as delicately as I can.

 

I believe that government should have no role in marriage. The government is finance by taxes, which are forcefully taken from its citizens. The people can either leave the country, or pay taxes- there is no willful giving.

 

That being said, the areas of life that government should be involved in should be limited. Marriage is an institution that should exist only in the churches. People who believe in gay marriage can attend churches that marry gays. People who don't can attend other churches. However, if gay marriage was legalized, I would still have to pay taxes, regardless of my stance on it.

 

I just don't understand what benefit the government receives from encouraging marriage- heterosexual or homosexual. I understand the child-tax credit. But as well as the reasons that I listed above, I won't vote or support to expand an institution that I don't believe that the government has a right to have its hand in.

 

FWIW, I appreciate you coming over to P&R and having a real debate- it is refreshing.

 

No problem, I'm writing a paper on this right now for my State Constitutional Law class. I took the less popular opinion and I'm trying to make sure that I've been exposed to every possible counter argument.

[cch5432]

No problem, I'm writing a paper on this right now for my State Constitutional Law class. I took the less popular opinion and I'm trying to make sure that I've been exposed to every possible counter argument.

 

Well that is just cheating then. :lol:

[mexitucky]

California has all but passed Prop. 8 which will create an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as only b/n one man and one woman. This overrules a California Supreme Court decision from May that was basically decided on the same grounds as CT's case. I wonder what effects this will have for CT.

[HHSDad]

Connecticuit did not okay gay marriage, its Supreme Court did.

Huge difference.

[mexitucky]

Huge difference.

 

I know. The Court did not write an opinion based soley on personal belief, but rather on their interpretation of what rights are protected for all people, not just popular groups. The majority of citizens can't do that now. They agree w/ the lifestyle and will vote based on their morals and religious beliefs, rather than being able to seperate themselves from their ideals of morality from the definition of liberty. It's been that way throughout the history of this country. It's years down the road.

 

All men are created equal unless the majority doesn't like who you are or what you represent.

[ladiesbballcoach]

California has all but passed Prop. 8 which will create an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as only b/n one man and one woman. This overrules a California Supreme Court decision from May that was basically decided on the same grounds as CT's case. I wonder what effects this will have for CT.

 

Saw this morning that there is a planned appeal to the Ca SC in the changing of the constitution to define marriage.

[hoopboy]

Where in the constitution does it say it's alright for men to marry other men, and women to marry other women? I mean I'm seriously asking, because I don't know if it does or not.

[mexitucky]

It does not say it in the Constitution. It wasn't until 1996 that marriage was officially defined by Congress as between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act "DOMA" defined marriage and also excluded the Full Faith and Credit clause, by stating that states did not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. In 1998 KY passed a statute defining marriage in the same way and another prohibiting same-sex marriages. In 2004, a constitutional amenment modeled after the DOMA was adopted.

[hoopboy]

Then I'm against it.