This past week Chief United States Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 that Californians passed last year that defined marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is that Prop 8 violated the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GBLT) community Civil Rights. Let's be clear here, marriage is not a right. The choice of any two people or several people for that matter, wanting to share their lives together is not a matter that Government needs to be a part of. I understand that the GLBT feels they have the "right" to marriage. I understand the religious proponents of the same-sex marriage are determined to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why is that we feel this dilemma needs government intervention. Am I alone to see that government created this mess by their co-op of marriage by giving tax breaks, requiring a license and collecting fees?
It is time for both sides to agree to remove government from the process. Remove marriage as an option in the IRS tax code. Remove the license requirement with states. The issue seems so simple solved by removing government from the equation. The barriers that the GLBT are looking to be removed are health care coverage, recognition of property rights that exist between married couples and having the same legal standing that is granted to married couples. Well, a number of companies, i.e. Target, already have recognized the health care situation by allowing coverage for domestic partners. My thought is that every health care plan should be label in this manner as the domestic partner can be anyone. The property of rights and legal standing is already obtainable through power of attorney and other legal writs and this is where all couples should be directed to.
Government has only made a mess of this issue. I know many will argue that the license in important to ensure the legal standing of the married couple – of age, not already married or citizens of the US. Do any of those reasons really matter? I understand that most religions see polygamy as a bad thing but who are we to dictate to another how they are to spend their lives? We speak of religious tolerance, and are backed up by the Constitution, yet we do not recognize the ability for a woman to "marry" several men and women. As I said before, it is time to get government out of the marriage business. By removing them from the equation we create a win/win situation. Marriage is not longer institutionalized and returned to Religious groups and all of us will have to develop legal writs with our partnerships.
The government didn't create this mess, as you call it. The SC is the one who found it as a right and did so almost 50 years ago. This right would exist regardless of the tax code.
ReplyDeleteI'm all in favor of getting the federal government out of this one. You reverse DOMA. Then full faith and credit requires each state to acknowledge gay marriages done in a different state. You win because we get less government.
Where did the SC court establish marriage as a right? I want all government out of the marriage industry. Everyone - straight, gay or bisexual - can enter into a property contract and a power of attorney with a life partner(s). That is the process, from a legal standpoint, that all people ought to follow.
ReplyDeleteNow, if people want to marry then leave it to their individual religous dogma. If their dogma allows for same-sex marriage then so be it, if their dogma does not allow same-sex marriage then so be it. Marriage is a private issue and something that the Government should not be involved in any manner.
Loving v. Virigina. Zablocki v Redhail
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that one definition of marriage is religious. However, we have a second definition and that one covers all of things you want in a private contract. So really, the way I look at it, a marriage license is that contract. The government has already laid out the terms ahead of time and it is fluid enough to cover more situtations than a contract would.
I don't believe anyone is saying that Lutherans have to allow gays to marry. Most recognize that is up to the religious groups.
And, even if your way is better, do you think it's going to happen? Do you think the government is going to avoid all marriages? Isn't the government still invovled in reviewing and litigating all of those individual contracts?
The government isn't going anywhere on this situation. I think you need to accept that. No one is going to run for an election to ban marriage as it is. So the question because, what do you propose to work within that structure.
What compelling interest does the government have in denying same sex marriage?
Thank you for the cases. I will have to read them to see what was determined. Here is where I have a bigger beef with the decision of this Judge. If Government is to be involved in the marriage and a State decides that they do not want to allow gay marriage then shouldn't they have that ability to do so?
ReplyDeleteNot if it is a constitutional foundamental right. Could a state say they don't want to be part of an aspect of free speech?
ReplyDeleteFree speech is a right established by the Constitution and marriage is not. That is where the difference lies.
ReplyDeleteNo, proponents say marriage is a right inherient in the constitution. So there is no difference.
ReplyDeleteI understand what proponents are saying but I do not see anywhere in the Constitution where is states that marriage is a right. Marriage is a choice that one enters into with another(s). The Loving v. Virginia used the 14th Amendment to state that interracial marriages were protected under the Constitution. Going back to the 14th Amendment I do not see, again, where it states that marriage is a right.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I do not see where the Government has the ability to make any decision in regards to marriage or why they are allowed to sanction it in any manner.
Well, the Supreme Court has disagreed with you so marriage is, indeed, a fundamental right.
ReplyDeleteSo the question again, given that marriage as a right won't change, what compelling reason does the government have in prohibiting same sex marriage?
So if the SC were to reverse their decision and vote that same-sex marriage is not a right or protected under the 14th Amendment then that would be the end of the discussion?
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a private matter and should be left that way. If someone wants to marry someone of the same-sex or marry multiple people then so be it. It is not something for me but I recognize that government should not stand in the way. Now, Prop 8 was voted on by Californians to define marriage and establish it as part of their Constitution.
Isn't the purpose of marriage to promote the family unit and bring stability to society to ensure its ability to survive. Part of the survival is the continuation of society through conception of new citizens. That new conception cannot, without medical intervention, take place with same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriages is a wicked lie that our society is not recognizing. The purpose of marriage is, as Viper points out, to promote the continuation of a moral society.
ReplyDeleteSo gays aren't moral? They don't bring stability? They curren't aren't stable? All straight couples are stable? So all opposite sex marriages have kids? Shouldn't we require kid then to achieve your goal of a relationship?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that your purpose of marriage? What if mine is to spend my life with the person I love? Isn't that the actual purpose of marriage? Can't the continuation of society through kids be done outside of marriage just as easily? If everyone had kids, wouldn't the world be overpopulated?
Kids has nothing to do with it. Come on. Marriage is a commitment between two people. How are two same sex couples committing a wicked lie by wanting to spend their lives together and have the same rights afforded others?
Where is the acutal harm to the state? Not the harm to your sense of religious morality. I forget, happy loving couples are so dangerous.
The purpose of marriage, was historically to protect women/children from abandonment by the male figure in the relationship. Now that women work, it's primarily a protection for children. The only other purpose it serves is the ritualism that our society has constructed around it.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, giving up control over marriage means giving up control over one of the last vestiges of that old idea of "normal". And as we move further from what people remember from their childhood as "normal" they get scared. Change isn't easy for most people.
I disagree, to an extent, in that purpose of marraige was for the father of the bride to essentially sell his daughter to another. Women and children had little legal recourse through much of history and often had no choice but to stay with a man, despite what he may have done.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as giving up control but merely extending that same right to another. How does allowing a gay couple to marry diminish another marriage? It's what the parties make of it.
The homosexual lifestyle is a deviant one and is not one that promotes strong moral fortitude. Marriage is a rite performed to entwine two souls - a male and female. It is not a rite performed for sexually deviant lifestyles. Had the good Lord wanted homesexuals to participate in marriage the Lord would not given Eve to Adam as the Word states. Too many people do not take marriage serious nor the time to understand it's importance.
ReplyDeleteThe harm of allowing homosexuals to marry is to the sanctity of marriage. The bridegroom was not meant to be shared by same-sex couples, it is meant to be shared by a male and a female.
It is true that women and children in many cultures view them as property and a means to an end. Luckily here in the United States we do not. Our Nation was founded on Anglo-Saxon ideals and had these Founders realized the extent to which alternative lifestyles would emerge perhaps they would have addressed it. Then again perhaps they did address it by not putting language in the Constitution that discussed marriage because they believed in the seperation of Church and State.
ReplyDeleteSince their Anglo-Saxon view of marriage was that of a rite why are we not recognizing that they left out this right as any sanction of marriage was a violation of Church and State?
Anon, I shouldn't but I will. Deviant behavior? Show me where gays are more likely to commit crime. To be uneducated. To rape. Murder. Lie, steal. Aren't they entrusted with roles in our society like teachers, doctors, cops, etc. and carry those out? Even military, right?
ReplyDeleteLacking fortitude? I forget it's the easy way to be who you are, how you were born, and face ridicule, and hate, and violence, and intolerance, and, in some cases, murder from such hate filled intolerant people.
The rite you speak of doesn't matter here. Only rights. Your religious beliefs don't dictate how others live, only the laws and constitution do. So keep that to yourself.
Doesn't it seem that people who put their relationship out there and fight for the right to be treated the same as others take their relationship seriously?
How is your sanctity of marriage hurt? Do you think about gays when you are with your spouse? Do they harm your chance to love your spouse?
Don't bother answering, I really don't fucking care how a hate filled intolerant person feels. Only this, I'm assuming you are religious and Christian. I forgot Jesus said Love they neighbor but only those who share the same beliefs as you. You certainly walk Jesus's teachings of accpetance and tolerance and not judging others. I only hope he shows you the same standard some day.
And Viper, stop talking about rites. I've agree relations can do what they want. I don't care about rites. Do you accept two different definitions of marriage? Why by the government, why religious? The former is the only one that matters.
To the Anon that wrote at 4:04pm:
ReplyDeleteYou are extremely sure of yourself. That is to be admired. In a way. Or maybe not because of what that confidence appears to have inspired: hatred and disgust for those that do not share the same exact beliefs as you.
Hatred? Disgust? Where did I get that? Hmm, let me see:
"The homosexual lifestyle is a deviant one and is not one that promotes strong moral fortitude."
Or perhaps it was this:
"It [referring to marriage] is not a rite performed for sexually deviant lifestyles."
You are obviously not out to win over hearts and minds with comments like that. Doesn't sound very loving or compassionate or humble.
Yes, I know "judge not lest ye be judged yourself." The way I figure it though, judging you is much less of a sin than your hatred of your fellow man. Good luck with all that.
One last quote, "what you have done to the least of my brethren you have done to me".
I can hardly wait for your scripture and hate filled rant as a response. Either that or you might pray for me or the other anon so that we might see the light and accept the Word and the Lord as our savior. No need douchebag, I don't want your fucking prayers.
I'm not nor do I have any desire to be a born again evangelical christian asshole who thinks he/she has everything figured out.
Viper, good to see that you're confused again.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, let's be clear. It's not as if this country was founded with the modern day view of marriage, women or children. I have a feeling that some of the founders of which you speak so fondly did have a rather "old fashioned" view of their spouses, their role and their rights.
Nice reasoning too on the Founders treatment of marriage in the U.S. Constitution. I can really only think of one person who would be so ignorant to think that he could predict with a fair amount of certainty the extent to which [fill in the blank with whatever social, cultural or political norm you want] would emerge more than 200 years in the future. Who would that be? You.
I know I say this at the risk of getting you started on one of your "let's repeal Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland and every other Supreme Court opinion with which I disagree or don't quite grasp", but I'll say it anyways. You'd be hard pressed to find many statutes that have a direct and clear link to language in the Constitution. It rarely happens. That doesn't mean that the law is unconstitutional. It's not even about penumbras. It's just that the Constitution was written in such a way that it struck, in my view, a perfect balance between specificity and generality.
To answer your last question, read, for once actually read, an opinion of the Supreme Court. Perhaps Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) ("Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature.") or Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ("marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power) or Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) ("We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man."). You might just get a clue that, contrary to your own personal belief, big bad government has been involved in marriage for quite some time.
The deviant behavior is sexual in nature. Sodom was leveled because of the debauchery it allowed to take place. The Lord gives us all Free Will to make choices with the understanding that his flock will chose purity over the sins of sodomy. The vulgar language that Clark and you use displays your ignornance of the Word. Jesus did preach acceptance by cleansing the sins from ones soul. Jesus did preach to love thy neighbor but not to covet thy neighbors wife. Notice the Word does not speak of not covet thy neighbors domestic partner.
ReplyDeleteWhen your soul is rejected at the gates of St. Peter and sent to Lucifer's den for an enternity of suffering greater than the sins the homosexual community has lived. I do not speak hatred nor disgust; rather I carry on the Word and promote a lifestyle that recognizes and promotes the sanctity of the bridegroom.
Clark
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that our country was founded on Anglo-Saxon ideals. I believe I said that above. The one thing the founding fathers did recognize is that we needed to seperate the Church and State. That being said, marriage was not included by defintion or a right within the Constitution as founders looked to keep Church rites seperate from the rights a republic society required to meet all challenges.
"When my soul is rejected at the gates of St. Peter and sent to Lucifer's den for an eternity of suffering"?!?!?! Is this Jesus Christ himself? I can understand why you'd choose the anonymous profile. Using your real name might cause a stir. It's good to see that you're so sure of my soul's eternal fate based upon some comments on a blog. You must be that carpenter from Galilee.
ReplyDeleteHow does using a word like asshole display my ignorance of "the Word"? Really, please do tell. I swear so that means what? I'm a pagan? A Satan worshiper? A lost soul? Oh wait, maybe something worse...an infidel? A non-believer?
And as for your Sodom comment, I'm guessing you agree with those that think 9/11 and hurricane Katrina were our payback from God for allowing homosexuality to exist.
Viper, did you read my comment? Did you read the excerpt from Maynard v. Hill? The government has been involved in the marriage business for a long long time. The issue of Church and State is separate from the issue of marriage. How else do you explain the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on issues related to marriage 14 different times?
ReplyDeleteClark
ReplyDeleteI did read your comments. I acknowledge the Supreme Court has ruled on marriage over the years. That is more to my point though. By ruling on marriage, the Supreme Court has put government front and center on the issue instead of stating that marriage is not something the government is to intervene in. Rather the issue of marriage is to be set in local communities as it is not the role or a power given the Federal Government by the US Constitution.
While I do not know you personally Clark, I do contend that if you succomb to the sin of homosexual activity then your soul will no enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Does your vulgar language make you a pagan, a soldier of Satan, a lost soul, an infidel, a non-believer? No, it just simply displays a lack of respect for the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAs for 9/11 and Katrina, I do not share the belief that either event is a payback from the Lord for allowing homosexuality to exist for the Lord does not allow it to exist within the flock. Even though some Christian groups are allowing their shepards to live that lifestyle.
"The homosexual lifestyle is a deviant one and is not one that promotes strong moral fortitude."
ReplyDeleteYes, because those that have espoused "moral fortitude" over the years have certainly shown what that really means.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-International-LGBT-Issues-Examiner~y2010m5d4-Cofounder-of-Family-Research-Council-caught-with-male-prositute-in-Miami-airport
Ahh, hypocrisy, ain't it grand? I've found that those who protest the hardest against homosexuality are usually the ones living in a closet themselves.
"The deviant behavior is sexual in nature. Sodom was leveled because of the debauchery it allowed to take place."
ReplyDeleteActually that's false. Try reading some writings of biblical scholars instead of conservative literature.
Sodom was destroyed because they were rude to their guests which is a major offense in the middle east to this day. Amongst even warring tribes, when someone is a guest in your home they are to be treated as an honored guest. The offense was disrespect, not sex. The catholic church used this mis-interpretation for centuries to cast aspersions on groups.
I know ignorance is bliss, but given that there's no cure for stupid, how about you try not to spread that disease too much, ok?
Viper, you missed it again. The Supreme Court has not put government front and center on the issue, the government has done it themselves. How? By legislating on the issue. The Supreme Court can't just rule on an issue of the day; there has to be a law and a case or controversy. Sorry to tell you this, but your opinion on what the Supreme Court should have done is not going to change what has been done. Look up stare decisis.
ReplyDeleteAnon (aka Jesus Christ), you sure are quick to change your tune.
ReplyDelete"Your soul is rejected at the gates of St. Peter and sent to Lucifer's den for an eternity of suffering" versus "I do contend that if you succumb to the sin of homosexual activity turn your soul will [not] enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
"The vulgar language that Clark and you use displays your ignorance of the Word." versus "It just simply displays a lack of respect for the conversation."
Which is it J.C.?
I guess I didn't know that "the flock" had been purged of homosexuality. That's news to me and probably a shock to the thousands of homosexual Christians that attend church on a regular basis. Or are you suggesting that your flock , the annointed ones who are already destined for heaven, have removed the stain of homosexuality from their ranks?
Anon, here's the beauty of it, I don't believe in the same god you do. My higher power isn't vindictive or hateful, but full of acceptance and forgiveness. I'm pretty content with were I'll end up after this life is done.
ReplyDeleteAnd if your so right, why worry about others so much? Let the live their lives and deal with the consequences. My word of god doesn't judge others. And in my opinion, since homomsexuality is a biological sexual preference, god created it so I think he has room in his heart for those he created.
Where does your judging other land you, out of curiousity?
Awe come on, did you guys scare off the hatemonger with your strong (and quite nice) attacks on his fundamentalist views? I'm disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI am not making an attempt to defend the other anonymous here but if God, in all his varying splendor, crafted the world in his image then we must accept that he is vindictive, hateful and petty as all of those forces exist.
ReplyDeleteOne could make an the arguement that Free Will leads us in that manner but I see that as a scapegoat. The One did create the realm and it is the Demiurge's of the various "religions" that entrap our spark in the darkness of ignornance. These Demiurge's believe they are the true God and none exist before; sadly they are mistaken.
The One above is all, is everything, is unknowable and best of yet is nothing.
Or doesn't exist at all.
ReplyDeleteI read this thread, and I have three comments:
ReplyDelete1. Regarding the ORIGINAL part of this post. I agree with Chris. I don't know that Chris's intent is what I think of when I read his posts about this topic - I always think of it this way, would the conservatives who want to prohibit gay marriage be willing to give up their "rights" as a straight married couple? If not - then what is their concern? God is going to have his glory, regardless of man-made laws. This being a point of argument just creates more division. I'm advocating for everyone to come to agreement on this - it simply won't happen in today's society. I'm not even saying this idea is possible. It's probably a bit utopian. I'm saying the entire notion of government being involved - even if it were done so 50 years ago -is just one more thing where, well - they are involved. Do we really need that? Not sure if that is where Chris is getting at, but that is how I take it. So for sake of argument I'll ask that - do we really NEED government involved in this part of our lives?
2. Point two was going to address this "religion" talk. But I think that would only contribute more to derailing what the orignal debate was about. Not because one's "religious belief's" were used for their argument for or against. But becuase it quickly turned into an arena to slam someone. And via typed words at that. We should all just get together and talk about this. We'd probably be a lot more civil to each other. Sad, really....
3. Point 3 is just that. I'd ask everyone who reads or posts here - not because I administer this or anything, but just common courtesy - to think about whether we'd say that to each other's faces before typing and posting. Some things, yes we would. Others - I would hope we woudln't......
Ted
A timely poll and, given the response of those under 50, this issue will be viewed in 40 years as we view today allowing people of different races to marry. It will be shocking it was ever an issue. My opinion, at least. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/americans-split-evenly-on-gay-marriage/
ReplyDeleteTed
ReplyDeleteThank you for your recap. You nailed my original intention of the conversation.