Same sex marriage is already a constitutional protected unalienable right

[cybrsage]

My view is that the fed gov, and state/local govs, should get out of the religion business and stop putting the force of law behind the religious institution of marriage (this applies to the US only - in case people are confused). The government should only do civil unions. They can authorize the same people who currently do marriages to do civil unions, to make it easy. The religion can issue the marriage certificate of their choice and also the legal civil union.

Makes it easy on everyone...everyone wins.


As an aside, the first amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[feralkid]

You guys are being trolled. By a moron.

He's reprehensible and should be censured.

 

[bfdd]

not trolling, you guys just ignore things that have been there since forever because of stupid preconceived notions of how shit is supposed to work or should work.

fact is 1st Amendment protects same sex unions marriages whatever you want to call it as far as the Federal Government is concerned. DOMA was non-sense and was unjust/illegal. The argument if States have the right to intervene in such a thing is now the issue of the 10th Amendment which clearly states that powers not delegated to the Federal Government are passed along to the State OR the People. If you understand anything of our Federal system you will know that the split sovereign rule of the land between Federal and State would most likely leave such a thing up to "the people" seeing as States shouldn't infringe on each other by refusing to acknowledge contracts between peoples in whichever State they formed the contract in. Seriously what I'm saying really isn't all that crazy, it just requires you to unlearn the bullshit you've been fed about all this non-sense.

 

[cybrsage]

Please show how the first amendment grants the right to marry. Be specific, as in quote the exact portion you think does this.

You could be right, but without showing us specifics you are on the losing side.

 

[Smoblikat]

While I agree that same sex marriage shouldnt even be an issue, it does not fall under the first amendment, and even if it did, the states can still make up their own laws.

 

[bfdd]

Please show how the first amendment grants the right to marry. Be specific, as in quote the exact portion you think does this.

You could be right, but without showing us specifics you are on the losing side.

You have the right to assemble.

as·sem·bly (-smbl)
n. pl. as·sem·blies
1.
a. The act of assembling.
b. The state of being assembled.
2. A group of persons gathered together for a common reason, as for a legislative, religious, educational, or social purpose.
3. Assembly The lower house of the legislature in certain U.S. states.
4.
a. The putting together of manufactured parts to make a completed product, such as a machine or electronic circuit.
b. A set of parts so assembled.
5. A signal by bugle or drum for troops to come together in formation.
6. Computer Science The automatic translation of symbolic code into machine code.
7. Computer Science An assembly language.

It's protected from the Federal Government, they shall make NO LAW infringing upon it. DOMA was unconstitutional and all of those who signed on should be brought up on charges for passing such unconstitutional non-sense in legislature.

The 10th is a little harder to get around and would require we delve into more philosophical reasoning which IMO is the largest indication that it should be left TO THE PEOPLE to decide what they want to do with their lives, in terms of "marriage"(I'm going to use it in quotes at times because I mean the entirety of the concept in all forms), because philosophical or subjective things should not be law. As such I see such "rights" skipped over being given to the State and directly given to us, the people.

 

[cybrsage]

OK, so you are allowed to live with a person of the same sex. That does not mean you have the right to marry that person. If the right to assemble meant marriage we would have had some rather large (and very illegal) polygamist marriages happening when the non-bathers all hung out for months, stinking up Wall Street.

 

[Lemon law]

In the USA and virtually every modern country on earth, the institution of marriage and it right and obligations are conveyed and defined by the State and no longer by any religion.

On one hand any church can and maybe should define who can and who cannot be married inside their church's belief systems, but if two consenting adults choose to leave their religion, they can be married by civil authorties that do actually protect and define the rights and obligations of marriage. Be the marriage be between same sex couples or the more normal male female marriages.

Anything else is absurd, as its internationally recognized, that once married, one can't just jump states or religions to escape the rights and obligations of marriage. Without first going through formal divorce State sponsered Court proceedings.

As a heterosexual male married to a female, I recognize and endorse that marriage is an instituation of social stability, and also feel its just plain wicked to deny that same institution to same sex couples.

Yes its true, Gay and Lesbian tendencies are heriditary, as Gays and Lesbians get in not from their parents and instead "normal" parents find about 4% of their children turn out to be either Gay or Lesbian.

 

[cybrsage]

In the US, the religious institution existed before the legal institution. The government put the force of law behind the legal institution - which actually violates the Constitution. Rather than continue to violate it, we should fix it by removing government from marriage.

 

[bfdd]

OK, so you are allowed to live with a person of the same sex. That does not mean you have the right to marry that person. If the right to assemble meant marriage we would have had some rather large (and very illegal) polygamist marriages happening when the non-bathers all hung out for months, stinking up Wall Street.

All definitions of "marriage" fit the definition of something that would be classified as an "assembly". Sorry, the Federal Government has no say in that matter says so right in the 1st Amendment.

Mind you I don't condone the Government, any Government, using force to force those who do not want to recognize their assembly to recognize it either. That's, like I said, up to the people. IMO A lot of this issue is due to our FUCKED tax code and is why this issue is shoved to the front. Because there's money involved. Get the money out and it won't be an issue. How do you get the money out? By acknowledging our fucking already in place amendments.

 

[cybrsage]

The government does not have to confer the right to receive goods after death to someone based on the right to assembly. The government does not have to confer immediate next of kin rights on someone due to the right of assembly.

Marriage confers these rights.

 

[bfdd]

The government does not have to confer the right to receive goods after death to someone based on the right to assembly. The government does not have to confer immediate next of kin rights on someone due to the right of assembly.

Marriage confers these rights.

No the "assembly" does, you're "assembly" is simply called "marriage" and not "corporation" or "union" Same thing.

 

[cybrsage]

I do not grant the right to decide my end of life care to those at my synagogue...

 

[bfdd]

I do not grant the right to decide my end of life care to those at my synagogue...

Good for you then, you don't have to give them that right. That's up to you, I'm saying the Government has NO SAY in what you do with that right and when they step over that boundary they are trampling on our rights.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You have the right to assemble.

4.a. The putting together of manufactured parts to make a completed product, such as a machine or electronic circuit.

It never occurred to me that Voltron was just a metaphor for gay marriage, but there it is.

 

[bfdd]

It never occurred to me that Voltron was just a metaphor for gay marriage, but there it is.

lol that's a pretty good one

 

[Paratus]

The first amendment say no laws respecting religion.

Effectively this means any religion that wants to marry a gay couple can and there is nothing the government can do to stop them.

What is being denied is equal rights under the law which is unconstitutional based on equal protection. If you don't believe that consider the following:

Alice and Bob can marry and the state will provide certain legal benefits

Alice and Betty can marry and the state will not recognize them soley on the basis of Bettys sex which is prohibited by equal protection.

Civil unions will not stop gay couples from marrying in churches that allow them. The first amendment will protect churches that do not wish to marry gays.

Society will benefit from the the same stability that heterosexual couples provide being extended to homosexual couples. All the same benefits procreation included.

 

[nehalem256]

The first amendment say no laws respecting religion.

Effectively this means any religion that wants to marry a gay couple can and there is nothing the government can do to stop them.

What is being denied is equal rights under the law which is unconstitutional based on equal protection. If you don't believe that consider the following:

Marriage is by definition creating inequality between single people and married people. You are not making an argument in favor gay marriage, but against straight marriage.

Alice and Bob can marry and the state will provide certain legal benefits

Alice and Betty can marry and the state will not recognize them soley on the basis of Bettys sex which is prohibited by equal protection.

No it is based on the fact that Alice and Betty are of the same sex.

And consider Tom and Alice are siblings. Bob is not.

Alice and Bob can marry and the state will provide certain legal benefits.

Alice and Tom can marry and the state will not recognize them solely on the basis of being siblings which is prohibited by equal protection.

Society will benefit from the the same stability that heterosexual couples provide being extended to homosexual couples. All the same benefits procreation included.

(1) Thanks to liberals pushing for no-fault divorce and removing the stigma in divorce, marriage really does not provide stability anymore
(2) Last time I check 2 men or 2 women cannot procreate together.

 

[OCGuy]

DOMA....Obama voted for it.


OP is 12.

 

[JEDIYoda]

actually nice troll thread...troll much??

 

[LumbergTech]

The OP may have a point....

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

Freedom of Assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, political right, and civil liberty.


If you consider a marriage an association...

It always pains me when this happens, but I agree with cybrsage about the government getting out of the marriage business.

 

[bfdd]

The OP may have a point....

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

Freedom of Assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, political right, and civil liberty.


If you consider a marriage an association...

It always pains me when this happens, but I agree with cybrsage about the government getting out of the marriage business.

Thanks for doing a little research instead of just writing off everything because I hold non-traditional or out of the norm beliefs. What I am saying is truth, everything else piled on top is merely rubbish for the fools to squabble over.

 

[Paratus]

Marriage is by definition creating inequality between single people and married people. You are not making an argument in favor gay marriage, but against straight marriage.



No it is based on the fact that Alice and Betty are of the same sex.

And consider Tom and Alice are siblings. Bob is not.

Alice and Bob can marry and the state will provide certain legal benefits.

Alice and Tom can marry and the state will not recognize them solely on the basis of being siblings which is prohibited by equal protection.



(1) Thanks to liberals pushing for no-fault divorce and removing the stigma in divorce, marriage really does not provide stability anymore
(2) Last time I check 2 men or 2 women cannot procreate together.

Yes the last time you checked in the 1300s they could not. But now thanks to the miracles of modern science, with invitro and surrogate mothers just about anyone can have a child. Plus theres always adoption.

Your other argument is nonsensical. The state essential approves of a contract between and Alice and Bob. The state does will not allow the contract between Alice and Betty. The only thing that has changed is the sex of the new partner.

Plus contracts alway discriminate between those in the contract am those outside. Or are you arguing that the state should never recognize any contract?

Incest is an entirely other matter. If you want to talk about it start another thread, (however 90% if the benefits marriage supplies are already present between blood relations, inheritance, visitation, etc so no marriage is needed)

 

[nehalem256]

Yes the last time you checked in the 1300s they could not. But now thanks to the miracles of modern science, with invitro and surrogate mothers just about anyone can have a child. Plus theres always adoption.

Invitro fertilization can create a child from 2 sperm now. Wow it has really advanced!

Your other argument is nonsensical. The state essential approves of a contract between and Alice and Bob. The state does will not allow the contract between Alice and Betty. The only thing that has changed is the sex of the new partner.

What has changed is that both partners are of the same sex.

Plus contracts alway discriminate between those in the contract am those outside. Or are you arguing that the state should never recognize any contract?

I am saying that granting special benefits to people based on them having sex with each other is clearly discrimination.

Incest is an entirely other matter. If you want to talk about it start another thread, (however 90% if the benefits marriage supplies are already present between blood relations, inheritance, visitation, etc so no marriage is needed)

Can you put you adult sister on your health insurance. Can you file a tax return together. Will she automatically inherit your wealth (no it gets divided amongst your relatives)

 

[piasabird]

Marriage is a states right issue. It has been argued in the supreme court for 200+ years and the Supreme court always comes to the same decision. You are wasting your time for the Fed government to make a ruling on it.