Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

[BigRedBuster]

No union of love between consenting adults should be illegal in the US. Call it marriage, call it what ever you want. The government should have zero authority to determine what adults do in this particular arena.

 

Every religion has every right and protection to not recognize a marriage as valid if they so choose.

As a Christian, I agree with this.

The only thing the government should care about is how that marriage pertains to tax law...etc.

[sd'sker]

 

No union of love between consenting adults should be illegal in the US. Call it marriage, call it what ever you want. The government should have zero authority to determine what adults do in this particular arena.

 

Every religion has every right and protection to not recognize a marriage as valid if they so choose.

As a Christian, I agree with this.

The only thing the government should care about is how that marriage pertains to tax law...etc.

 

and then let the churches define their sacraments however they want.

 

this is a very good example of the reasoning for separation of church and state. but the institution of marriage is very different than the sacrament of marriage, imo.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

No union of love between consenting adults should be illegal in the US. Call it marriage, call it what ever you want. The government should have zero authority to determine what adults do in this particular arena.

 

Every religion has every right and protection to not recognize a marriage as valid if they so choose.

As a Christian, I agree with this.

The only thing the government should care about is how that marriage pertains to tax law...etc.

 

and then let the churches define their sacraments however they want.

 

this is a very good example of the reasoning for separation of church and state. but the institution of marriage is very different than the sacrament of marriage, imo.

 

Yep. When the government started collecting fees for the right to marry and started allowing judges to perform marriages, or mayors, etc, it stopped being a religious sacrament.

[zoogs]

Yes by all means let's continue to allow a handful of lawyers to rule against the majority. Forget about what they are voting about...replace it with something you disagree with and you'll see the arrogance of these power drunk bums. We're getting closer and closer to a monarchy or dictatorship. Of course I'm just overreacting...

I think what you're really missing on is that the United States (and all other constitutional governments) are founded on rule of law, not rule by majority whim. In fact, protection of minorities is and has always been extremely central to this.

 

Even the colonists who were fleeing religious persecution, for example. The majorities there made it happen. As people, we are ALL incredibly blind to the needs of anybody other than ourselves. There's no getting around that. And that's why we have rule of law, not rule by default.

[Dbqgolfer]

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

[carlfense]

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age?

[StPaulHusker]

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Always?

[sd'sker]

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age?

lest we forget anti-miscegenation laws.

[BigRedBuster]

 

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age?

lest we forget anti-miscegenation laws.

 

LOL...I remember being a very little kid and my parents seeing a interracial couple and them just feeling so sorry for the children of such a relationship because they would be put into such a horrible situation.

 

Even as a very small kid, I never understood why.

[carlfense]

 

 

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age?

 

lest we forget anti-miscegenation laws.

 

Right. And in 50 years we'll look back on todays laws discriminating against homosexuals just like we do with the racist laws of our recent past.

 

Dbqgolfer: How far does your respect for the legislative process extend? Do you similarly hope that the Supreme Court will side with the administration in Halbig?

[zoogs]

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Same rule of law did not prevent states from having slaves or disenfranchising women, even though it should have long before it finally did.

 

Interesting you make the comment on familial status, though. That's certainly not uniform, nor has it been static.

[Dbqgolfer]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

 

And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the constitution forbids gay marriage, I'm arguing that it doesn't demand it.

[carlfense]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

Do you think that the Constitution would allow a law that only permitted people of the same race to marry?

[Dbqgolfer]

No

[zoogs]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

 

And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the constitution forbids gay marriage, I'm arguing that it doesn't demand it.

Well, I think there is some debate about the best way for this to go about. One idea would be to have an amendment. Our last president was as I recall a fan of an amendment to the opposite effect. Another possibility is to challenge laws as unconstitutional, which hopefully the Supreme Court holds up (there was a case two summers ago, right?)

 

In any case, those two things weren't somehow missing from the Constitution, but ultimately that's what they had to do (and may yet, in this case).

 

As carl points out, between our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I don't know how any scenario disenfranchising women or permitting slaves was ever considered lawful. So it goes here.