How is gay marriage a right?

[piece-it pete]

This is what I was getting at: Marriage is not mentioned in many (none that I know of) state constitutions, so according to those constitutions that decision is reserved for the people (the legislature).

However there is an increasing tendency in this country to allow judges to write laws from the bench. Sometimes elected & often appointed (state level) and appointed for life with no recourse (US Supreme court). They are supposed to protect these documents - not override them with their sense of morality! Is that the rule of law?

For me (as with the founding fathers) there is no room for personal beliefs in our dealings with the Constitution. No religion, hurt feelings, - no "justice". If not stated in the Federal constitution, it is reserved for the people (state gov't). This is *explicit* in the US constitution.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Mass. Constitution:

Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

It's easy to say we shouldn't be bound by these old documents. Debatable, as the founders had years & years of practical experience & study before the Constitution was written (and look at the success of their creation) - but Jefferson would agree - he said they should be rewritten by every generation.

They haven't been rewritten, and until they are they should be enforced as written.

Unless we want the Supreme Court to run the country - the U.S.A. as a dictatorship.

Pete

[karl k]

as being accurate. The process of making laws and the power distribution of government is clearly documented in those constitutions as you sited. The difference between what your original question was and your latest is the difference between what is deserved and what is earned. Rights are considered to be automatic with birth,creation,citizenship(to a lesser degree), and existance. These are the basic things that are inherent life... life, freedom to choose, acnowledgement to exist by others, ability to grow physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. In your second post, you speak of what members of your community are ALLOWED to do based on laws that are set forth by the majority of the community. It is that structure that you mention that has come into question here. Is it a right to get married as a gay couple? I think it should be as much a right as it would be for a straight couple. They both stand for the same ideal IMHO. Should the Feds and the State acknowledge such a marriage? Based on the paragraph I sited from the Declaration of Independence, as well as the ideals that all discrimination laws are based on, I think so. Should the Church endorse such a thing? That's up to the church. Marriage is not just an institution for the Church as a couple can get married by the "justice of the peace" and retain nearly the same acknowledgement by society of being married as you would from the Church. As it is stated in the Preamble, it(the constitution) was drawn up to form a more perfect union, to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility. Now I believe that the same can be said about the individual states constitutions as far as the intent and that if people were to put there beliefs aside and concentrate on equality and fairness for all people and not just the ones that agree with their beliefs, you wouldn't have such a mess trying to convince others about the morality of a subject.(tranquility through fairness and equality)

It is interesting to watch how people try to construct laws prohibiting others from doing something that they themselves couldn't stomach. There are several examples of this in historic and modern society. Interracial relationships, masterbation, oral sex, sodomy, alcohol and drug use, prostitution, baligamy, incest(of any kind), and homosexuality just to name a few. Some of these have laws on the books to curtale or prevent such acts, some have just been made to be frowned on by the majority. 10 yrs ago, people would have loved to tell me I as a whitie can't marry a Philipino(Asian/Polynesian) because of her skin color. And why is that, they(some in society) just couldn't see themselves doing the same thing and therefore refused it as being acceptable to watch others doing it. How would that be fair to me if I don't have a problem with that? Ultimately, the issues with homosexuality WILL be resolved just as it was with slavery,sufferage and bigotry. It may take time for society to come around but after enough people put themselves in a homo's shoes(and not in his bed), the laws will be changed and they be treated as you or I would want to be... as equals.

Now, I'm going to engage in the pursuit of happiness, by committing acts of sodomy and copulation, with my common law married Philipino wife of 16yrs in the privacy of our home, in the middle of the Bible Belt! (while adhearing to the laws of the state of Kansas) LOL

[piece-it pete]

And there is still no legal standing for these decisions, which means these judges are upsurping the will of the majority.

Consider the preamble. If you asked 10 people what it means you'll get ten different answers. Take Ken Lay. His pursuit of happiness includes bilking billions. Ahh, but stealing is wrong? That's a moral judgement!!

As such, and the fact it's not specific in the US Constitution, means that it's up to us. If we decide it's OK then, by law, there is nothing the court can do - but the courts now decide cases based on morality - so it's NOT up to us, and we are no longer a democracy.

So if "we the people" have come to a point where we believe homosexual "marriage" (btw, not a logical statement considering the definition of marriage) is morally right its' proper place is in the legislature, where it will pass. If it doesn't it is clearly the will of the people (and their perogative) to leave it alone.

Remember "disenfranchising voters" from the last election? That ain't nuttin compared to what's going on. And it's been going on for quite some time now. But I don't hear the ACLU braying about it.

So yet again the founding fathers were right for worrying thusly: We are not strong enough to keep a democracy.

Phew! Getting myself worked up! But I believe it's coming to crunch time. Jefferson also said that the tree of liberty must be fertilized by the blood of tyrants & patriots. Some stand ready.

And no, I'm not a kook !!

Pete

PS Have fun with the wife woofwoofwoof!! And when mine asks why so frisky, I'll tell her it's AudioReview LOL!

[karl k]

I can't argue about the power distribution although I believe your assessment of the judicial actions recently is in error. I suppose it all comes down to what you believe is right and just and whether you are on the loosing end of the decision or not. You see, those judges you speak of do represent the people they serve. As you pointed out, they are either elected or appointed by us directly, or indirectly through those we do elect, based on their ability to follow OR interpret the laws and constitutions. That's why you hear the contraversy surrounding the picks from the President. It's about long term performance and how it will shape the future of our country. Ultimately, people picked Bush(dubuh) because of his convictions and while that may be good and all for the short term, I don't believe all his long term nominations should be given the green light just for that reason. The judicial system has its own checks and balances as well. If you don't like the descision, appeal it to a higher court. In the end, we ARE the ones who put these judges where they are, by popular vote, one way or the other by our action of voting or our in-action by not voting. I did a short search on marriage and it's place in law and it turns out that you're right... the supreme court has dictated that it is the place of the states to decide about the particulars of marriage EXCEPT when it contradicts the constitution at the federal level. Just like you said it should.

Now for my arguement again...

In doing this search, I ran across a site at Cornell law that pertained to the example I sited about interracial marriages and discrimination laws. Here's the links...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

Now you can spend the time if you wish to read all the contents, but I think you will get my "drift" by just skimming the highlights. In essence, interracial marriages were allowed by the supreme court because of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which basically states that laws should be applied equally to all people w/o discrimination. So interracial marriage couldn't be denied soley because of race or color. Seems only fair don't you think? If you make a law, it should apply to everyone reguardless of "trivial reason". What constitutes trivial? If it doesn't adversely affect the community in which the law is acted, it's trivial. Now those laws that pertain to race also pertain(maybe only in part to date) to creed, national origin, sex(sexual orientation), religious affiliation, and age. Once again, if you are to believe that ALL men are created EQUAL, this amendment is saying that laws should apply equally to all men(women). Check it out and tell me what you think.

Now as far as your example of the pursuit of happiness, that's why we have laws... to set limits on what kind of happiness you can have w/o adversely affecting the community. I'd say that bilking billions at the expense of others(hundreds of others) constitutes an aggressive misuse of the pursuit and therefore you have the law about stealing. Laws are put in place to prevent loss of life, loss of property, and loss of human rights from occurring... not to reinforce the religious or other beliefs without specific cause. Now how is gay marriage going to adversely affect anyone? How can you call it nondiscriminatory? How can you not call it a reasonable pursuit of happiness? How can you restrict marriage to heterosexual couples and consider it justice? The bottom line to me... Why should the states or the popular vote be what decides the fate of homosexual couples relative to heterosexual couples? Shouldn't they be free to determine their legal status (as heterosexuals are) since they were created as equal as you or I as it states in the Declaration of Independence? You see, the marriage laws were drawn up as they are(pertaining only to opposite sex) because of one of two things, either fear of homosexuality and it's status of rejection in the church, or out of ignorance of the fact that it(homosexuality) existed and simply wasn't accounted for in the laws. Well we can't claim ignorance any longer so now it must simply be the fear and rejection that is causing all the commotion in changing the laws of marriage to reflect two people instead of man and wife . And it just so happens that fear is one of the leading causes of predjudice and discrimination. Ya know there's an old saying... Live and let live. The institution of law is only suppose to be excersized when someone is(or will be with high probability) adversely affected while live and let live is going on.

I am sorry I couldn't keep this discussion w/o getting a little moral on ya, sometimes you can't discuss laws w/o morals. It has been refreshing though! Keep it commin' Pete!

And BTW... RELAX A LITTLE!!! It doesn't to a body good to get all worked up! You'll get so stressed, your wife won't be willing or able to relieve it!!! LOL

The sum of my legal arguement...

All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...Declaration of Independence

All laws are to be excersized equally to all without reguard to race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or age... Equal Protection Clause, 14th amendment.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America... The Preamble.

[Pat D]

One must interpret the Constitition as a whole, not just take parts of it. The 14th amendment change the interpretation of other, earlier parts of the Constitution, because that's the way the Constitution reads NOW. And, that sort of thing is the job of the Supreme Court, despite the protestations.

[karl k]

I read in the link you provided to find it was VERY entertaining. I especially likes the "Focus on the Family" assessment on marriage and it's purpose! LOL To think that the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate is IMHO WWAAAAAAYYYYY outdated! If that were the case, one would have to assume that a womans sole purpose was to bear children, and that the only time to have sex was to have a child! HMMM, that might explain why I see so many couples in the "Bible Belt" with 4,5,6,...9 kids! LMAO!!!

I do believe I understand the root of the contraversy, and all I can say to one common arguement that marriage will somehow be diminished by allowing gays to wed is...

Take a long long look at what the institution of marriage has become today and tell me it can get worse!!!! Too many times have I seen what marriage has done to couples(and visa-versa) and their children. I think(based on the homosexuals I've known) that they stand as good or better chance of maintaining the standard of marriage or raising that standard and humiliating the heterosexual world.

Sorry man, didn't mean to babble on.

Good link though!

[Pat D]

Thanks.

Yes, some do think that gay marriage somehow devalues heterosexual marriage. I can't figure out what the whole issue has to do with me and my wife, and neither can she.

But another argument is that marriage has not changed since time immemorial, existing in some Platonic heaven, perhaps. I suppose there is a lack of intellectual integrity in many controversies, but this involves some very easily verifiable facts which few bother to look up. Here's another OCRT link showing 8 types of marriages/families in the Bible, along with information on changes in US marriage laws:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm

In the Bible, marriage is not contracted by the couple but by the family, represented of course by the fathers (of if the female' s father is dead, by her brothers). Read, or watch a DVD of, Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream to see a similar conception. Hebrew marriage was basically polygamous and allowed for concubines, as well. Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines in 1 Kings 11:3, and the only objection was that some of the 'foreign' wives worshipped other gods! Marriage It was not always voluntary as well. So, there have been some pretty significant changes.

Moreover, homosexual marriage is not unknown to history, although I have not found such detailed information on it..

I recently pointed all this out in letters to the local newspapers, including the Catholic diocesan weekly newspaper.

[piece-it pete]

To both Karl & Pat. I'm still trying to figure out this board! and didn't "see" your posts.

Don't worry, I'm not raising my blood pressure :).

Karl, I don't see the same words in the 14th amendment. Here's what I've got:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The other sections do not apply.


The definition of marriage (Merriam Webster):

shotgun marriage
Function: noun
Date: 1929
1 : a marriage forced or required because of pregnancy -- called also shotgun wedding
2 : a forced union

hahaha.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union


Therefore, marriage is exclusively between men & women and does not apply to gay couples, whether they like it or not. So, it is not discrimination, though it doesn't matter if it is, because it wouldn't be un-Constitutional discrimination.

No matter how you slice it, the court has no legal place in this matter, which is the basis of my original post :).

Pete