How is gay marriage a right?

[piece-it pete]

Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?

Pete

[nobody]

Does it say straight marraige is a right? Honestly, just curious. It may well, for all I know.

[bturk667]

Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?

Pete

Where does the Constitution say it isn't a right?
Where does the Constitution say that marriage (straight or gay ) is a right?

Seems to me that this all boils down to ones religious beliefs. When I asked a question about why is gay marriage wrong; overwhelmingly the people who oppsed it did so because of their religioue beliefs. So lets call it a union, just give them all the rights and benefits that straight couples get when they get married, and I think then this will stop being a issue.

It's seems to people that if states allow gay marriages, we as a society will accept homosexuality , which I do. This I feel is where the real problem lies. People of faith are not willing to do so! They will never see homosexuality as anything more than a sinful lifestyle choice. As if any of us have a choice in regards to our sexuality. I don't remember making a conscience choice to be a heterosexual. I didn't flip a coin, or do eany meany miney moe, I just like women not men.

[DMK]

I'm beginning to wonder if the researchers aren't onto something with the theory that homosexuality is genetic. If that's true, it isn't a conscious choice, obviously.

The bible is quite explicit with its position against homosexuality. I wonder how the gay churches (and there are quite a few these days) answer that.

At any rate, if we are going to reject homosexuals, we should also reject Methodists, conservatives, cancer victims and rap music fans.

To answer your question, it's a right because it isn't breaking any laws and people have the freedom in this country to pursue that which they prefer so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedoms of others.

[karl k]

You speak of a lack of reference in the constitution(s) to the right of gay marriage but there "might" be one in the "Declaration of Independence". Ya, the little remembered document that started it all and which has a little passage that most forget when approached with an uneasy choice to make pertaining to what others should be able to do. Let me refresh your memory...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

It seems to me that the "right to the pursuit of happiness" prevails here.(unless of course you mean that you have the right to pursue all you want but not the right to ever find said happiness)

What I don't get, is why do people "require" a law to allow the right of marriage or more to the point, gay marriage, before they consider it acceptable? Better yet, why require a lack of a law to validate their personal non-acceptance? I believe all homosexuals are asking for is acceptance in society which constitutes all the rights and priviledges(sp?) that any "man" is endowed with. Now IF you were to believe that ALL men are created equal, and that their creater put them here with the right to happiness, then who are you to deny them(homosexuals) the right to something that you yourself consider to be so important and necessary to the fulfillment of life and happiness?

Sounds to me like another case of you don't believe in the same thing I do so your not entitled to the same stuff.

Just a thought...

[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

[Pat D]

The bible is quite explicit with its position against homosexuality. I wonder how the gay churches (and there are quite a few these days) answer that

Well, now, this is something I have to point out to opposite poles in the debate:

The Bible has no general word for homosexuality and did not have the category, and apparently neither did any other ancient language. In English, homosexual activity refers to both males and females, and covers a variety of behaviours. Any translation using the term 'homosexual' or 'homosexuality' is incorrect, therefore, as there is no such word in Hebrew or Greek. Accordingly, there is no general condemnation of all homosexual behaviour in the Bible. There is no certain reference to lesbianism anywhere in the Bible (Rm. 1:26 can be plausibly interpreted quite otherwise). What specific behavior is meant in each text, under what circumstances does it occur, and how it is evaluated? Some scholars convincingly identify them with such things as sacred prostitution or exploitative sex, especially sex between adults and children.

I should point out that the same issue exists in Church history: homosexuality is a modern word, so when did the Church develop this concept? Apparently, no one has been able to find it in the early church.

I must say that when I first looked into these maybe 15 years ago, I had sort of assumed the fundamentalists were correct, and would have suggested simply that their beliefs were cultural limited and lacked modern knowledge.. Once I read the texts, I found I had numerous historical questions, and I soon found that the good scholars had the same sort of questions and a lot more.

The following link has a useful discussion, although I would prefer other interpretations at times.

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

[mtrycraft]

Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?

Pete

Why would the 'Equal Protection' law cover this contract?
After all, in civil law, isn't this a contract we are trying to define? With benefits of this contract to follow such as property rights, visitations in hospitals, next of kin, etc.?

[karl k]

From a legal standpoint, that is the root of the arguement. By default, the definition has always been a union between man and woman... not two people. It's this definition that is being challenged. How does the 14th come into play? Directly, it doesn't IMO so long as the definition of marriage stays as it is. But if it were to change, it would set a precidence for discrimination and would force the population to legally accept the ability for gays to marry. Now some will argue that even w/o the change of definition, the law is still discriminatory since it is selective to opposite sex partners only and therefore it is justified to change the defination of marriage. I believe it is this interpretation of the law that some fear will be carried out by the judges instead of by popular vote at the state level.

[Pat D]

Now some will argue that even w/o the change of definition, the law is still discriminatory since it is selective to opposite sex partners only and therefore it is justified to change the defination of marriage. I believe it is this interpretation of the law that some fear will be carried out by the judges instead of by popular vote at the state level.

Well, the 14th Amendment was passed legally and in accordance with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to apply it.

Now, since marriage laws have changed quite drastically in the past. Foir example, in many states, people of different races weren't supposed to marry but the Supreme Court shot down the laws--funny how nobody much complains this was undemocratic. What's the difference?

[karl k]

legally, the 14th isn't saying all people are supposed to be equal. All it was saying is that all laws are supposed to apply equally to all people within the context of the law. Here's the difference...

In the state laws, the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. So any laws about marriage are based on the idea that only a man and a woman can get married. In the discussion of interracial marriage, the 14th applied because it(interracial marriage) still fits the definition of marriage at the state level... a man and a woman. That's where same sex marriage differs and the 14th MAY not apply until the definition of marriage is changed to reflect two people instead of man and woman. Since the current laws pertain to opposite sex(by definition), one half of a homosexual couple would have to be determined medically(either physically or mentally) as female/male before the 14th could apply. If the 14th were it be applied without a change in the definition of marriage, the arguement will surely be that the 14th does not exist to make all people equal.

Here's another extreme example...

The laws say that you can have a drink if your over 18/21yrs. The 14th allows anyone over this age to have a drink without discrimination. It cannot allow anyone reguardless of age to have a drink because it would be implying all people as equal instead of implying the laws be equally applied.

These are just my opinions based on what I've read so far. Though I do agree with the idea of same sex marriage being allowed by law(if such a law is required for acceptance), and do believe the definition of marriage is discriminatory, I also believe we as a society will see a long battle before a conclusion is made and as some fear, the decission will probably be a judges interpretation of the law.

Just a note... Fundamentalist are argueing about same sex marriage being a bad thing that shouldn't be allowed by law and society while, in the state of Kansas, you can still by law get married at the age of 14!(which I find absurd since you are said to not have enough intelligence to vote or the responsibility to drink at that age)

[mtrycraft]

From a legal standpoint, that is the root of the arguement. By default, the definition has always been a union between man and woman... not two people. It's this definition that is being challenged. How does the 14th come into play? Directly, it doesn't IMO so long as the definition of marriage stays as it is. But if it were to change, it would set a precidence for discrimination and would force the population to legally accept the ability for gays to marry. Now some will argue that even w/o the change of definition, the law is still discriminatory since it is selective to opposite sex partners only and therefore it is justified to change the defination of marriage. I believe it is this interpretation of the law that some fear will be carried out by the judges instead of by popular vote at the state level.

I think I made a small mistake It should have been 'why wouldn't the equal protection apply'
If state laws has a specific definition, then it is unconstitutional by excluding some sectors, regardless how they define it. And, they have excluded a large segment of th epopulation, or a small segment, doesn't matter.
This is not a popularity contest, what many like and hell with what the few want.
In the not too distant future, all this will be laughed at, how small minded some can be.
All this is because of religion, nothing else.

One only has to look around the palnet and see all the strife caused by it.

[karl k]

Whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. That's what all opposed to the law are afraid of... the judges changing the definition on their own, against "public wish's".

Here's my take on the Equal Protection Act in the 14th amendment...

http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...=2460#poststop

Look at the example on drinking and you'll understand how the EPA is applied and how it's not.

For what it's worth, I agree with your position on the core of the problem but don't believe it's exclusive to religion. There are alot of non religious people out there that just can't stomach the idea of watching such "abnormal" behavier let alone be able to explain the concept to their kids. I asked a long time male friend of mine who's position on gay's in general wasn't very pleasent...

"If a guy were to hit on you, would you kick his ass?"

The answer was yes because he would not want such a thing to happen to him and that he would find it so repulsive that it would deserve that action.

Then I asked...

Would you do the same to an old, fat, hooker?

He said no.

I asked what's the difference?

He couldn't answer.

Sometimes, people only know how they feel, not why they feel the way they do.

[alfbinet]

Karl k at the same time your straight homophobe friend would probability boast at the bar the next night how this ***** came onto him and he beat the **** out of him...with much laughter...but his ego would still be enhanced. And he still would have loved the attention.

[mtrycraft]

Whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. That's what all opposed to the law are afraid of... the judges changing the definition on their own, against "public wish's".


No, the judges would be ruling on the constitutionality of th ecurrent definition; unconstitutional. I also see an end to one spouse too.


Look at the example on drinking and you'll understand how the EPA is applied and how it's not.

But it applies equally to all under that age, males females, etc.

For what it's worth, I agree with your position on the core of the problem but don't believe it's exclusive to religion.

May not be exclusively but probably 95%.


He couldn't answer.

Figures.