It would be important if it were about a person's civil rights but unfortunately there is no law that is criminalizing homosexuality...
Did I miss something ???? ??? Everybody on the rampage about being gay and same sex marriages, there is a huge court case going on about this and people are protesting .....today . Is it really that serious ? I guess it is its going on now. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
It would be important if it were about a person's civil rights but unfortunately there is no law that is criminalizing homosexuality...
You'd like to see one?
The religious have their own ceremonies, and they should be allowed to control how they want their ceremonies to run if and only if they don't infringe on the rights of others.
The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Laws banning any sort of marriage is a direct infringement on human rights, and we should criticize any state that decides to go that route. If you don't want gay people to marry, then support a church that doesn't marry gay people. Don't get the government to ban it for everyone.
The religious have their own ceremonies, and they should be allowed to control how they want their ceremonies to run if and only if they don't infringe on the rights of others.
The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Laws banning any sort of marriage is a direct infringement on human rights, and we should criticize any state that decides to go that route. If you don't want gay people to marry, then support a church that doesn't marry gay people. Don't get the government to ban it for everyone.
Let us not confuse the issue, marriage is by definition simply stated the union of a man and a woman, period. That has been the established defintion since day one, in every society. Now, there is a matter of two distinct and in most respects aspects to marriage. One being a religous 'union' and the second is the legal contract that marriage brings with it. The two are separate and distinct.
As you state, one can opt to support or not support the religion aspects of the matter by associating with a like minded 'church'. However that in itself is NOT what this issue is about.
The civil aspect of this is pretty simple and need not be confused with the association of recognizing same sex unions as 'marriage'. What seems to be the main focus on this debate is abolishing the very definiton of marriage as it has been established since the beginning of mans existence, which as it is, the union of a man and a woman, exclusively. There is no reason that this matter could not be resolved with 'legalizing' civil unions for same sex parties, there is absolutely no need to extend that to being defined as 'marriage'. There are far too many ways for same sex partners to insure the 'rights' that marraige secures through the law even without the legalization of civil unions. Power or Attorney to each partner can be drawn that covers about 95% of those issues, and what it would not can be remedied in other ways that are every bit as binding. So, the matter is really one group trying to demand recognition/acceptance by changing the meaning of a single word. In reality, it is nothing more than that.
Not expressing an opinion on homosexualtiy as it would lead nowhere constructive, but the whole aspect of 'same sex marriage' and including that under the terms of 'legal marriage' is frought with problems that no one is addressing. The legal aspects of this, if made 'law' are huge and will be contining for decades to come. This matter is not as simple as 'who loves who' and has nothing to do with civil rights at all.
Do some serious research into this and I think you will be shocked at the ramifications of this complex subject. There is, like an iceberg, only a tiny fraction of the issue that is seen on the surface. :wave:
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/campaign_print/production/media/267/largesquare.jpg?1344612429)
The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Not expressing an opinion on homosexuality as it would lead nowhere constructive, but the whole aspect of 'same sex marriage' and including that under the terms of 'legal marriage' is fraught with problems that no one is addressing. The legal aspects of this, if made 'law' are huge and will be continuing for decades to come. This matter is not as simple as 'who loves who' and has nothing to do with civil rights at all.
Do some serious research into this and I think you will be shocked at the ramifications of this complex subject. There is, like an iceberg, only a tiny fraction of the issue that is seen on the surface. :wave:
These ramifications would include......?
Your comment said nothing at all. Empty rhetoric. What ramifications?
Did I miss something ???? ??? Everybody on the rampage about being gay and same sex marriages, there is a huge court case going on about this and people are protesting .....today . Is it really that serious ? I guess it is its going on now. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
With contracts, there are usually certain terms that need to be satisfied in order to fulfill the contract. If the contract of marriage within a particular state says that the people have to be above the state's age of consent, then in order for that contract to be valid, both people need to be above that age. That is not age discrimination as understood under the 14th Amendment because everyone must abide by that. Likewise if a state has defined marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex, then in order for it to be a valid contract, both people must be of the opposite sex. This is not directly prohibiting homosexual people from entering into a marriage contract (ie a homosexual man can "marry" a homosexual female) so again is not a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. If, on the other hand, a couple of the opposite sex (that also met the other requirements for marriage) were rejected to get married in a state because one of the individuals was homosexual, then the state would be in violation of that person's civil rights under the 14th Amendment. People tend to confuse this since our general understanding of marriage is a compact between two people that love each other, and thus by denying them the legal ability to marry is often seen as denying 2 people from loving each other. The right to love whom you want (as well as whom you want to associate with, etc.) is a civil right whereas the right to enter into a contract is about contract law.
There has long been precedent that the states are the ones that dictate family law. This includes the terms it requires for a legal marriage contract, which may include such things as the age of the individuals, their gender, the familial similarity between them (some states allow cousins to marry while other states require that they are most distant relatives), the mental status of them (eg both individuals have to have the mental capacity to understand the contract they are entering into, which may be set at a higher level than a mundane commercial transaction like buying something at Walmart), etc.
This is why I don't think that the court should have heard the first set of arguments with respect to California's law. This should have been left to that state to decide for themselves how it wants to handle its family laws, including how it chooses to define marriage. On the other hand, I do agree that the court should take a look at the arguments surrounding the federal DoMA law, as that is how the federal government chooses to define something that should be relegated to the states.
Not expressing an opinion on homosexuality as it would lead nowhere constructive, but the whole aspect of 'same sex marriage' and including that under the terms of 'legal marriage' is fraught with problems that no one is addressing. The legal aspects of this, if made 'law' are huge and will be continuing for decades to come. This matter is not as simple as 'who loves who' and has nothing to do with civil rights at all.
Do some serious research into this and I think you will be shocked at the ramifications of this complex subject. There is, like an iceberg, only a tiny fraction of the issue that is seen on the surface. :wave:
These ramifications would include......?
Your comment said nothing at all. Empty rhetoric. What ramifications?
Sorry, I intentionally did not list specifics. That would abrogate the intellectually lazy in their responsibility to actually seek out the facts by their efforts. That and I have no desire to get into a fight on this. Simply stated I will name just one ramification that is all to obvious: The very inclusion of the argument in Federal court is simply misplaced, and here the pro same sex people have a serious problem. The matter of states to determine marriage laws is long standing and in their proper place. Removing that to Federal jurisdiction is wrong and will in itself present massive problems now and in the future. In addition to that, the 'pro' side here is wanting the courts to abolish DOMA, basically on the same arguments. So which is it? States rights in the case of marriage law orfederal law on marriage? You cannot have it both ways.
The only Non-God anti same sex marriage arguments I have heard are fatally flawed. Their arguments all place procedure over progress.
lvstephanie, learn to compress thought and ideas into posts that people will read. I'm sure you have some nice, misguided information in that last one but it's too long winded for me or anyone else to plow through. Don't waste words, they are valuable.
The only Non-God anti same sex marriage arguments I have heard are fatally flawed. Their arguments all place procedure over progress.
@Flackle: When I was saying that laws defining marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex was not directly against homosexuals getting married, was to point out the difference between a law having a disparate impact upon a group versus being completely against a particular group. For example, most states disallow felons from voting. It could be argued that in a particular state, since the majority of the felon population is of a minority race, that the law is against minorities. But this is not accurate... Even though the minorities will be disparately impacted by such a law doesn't mean that the law is truly against minorities, and thus is not a civil rights issue of racial discrimination. Likewise defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has a disparate impact on homosexuals, esp. since in the general sense of the term people marry someone they are in love with, but is not necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals from getting married, as long as they follow that it is with someone of the opposite sex.
At one time this country went along with the founding fathers as marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.....Since this world has become so corrupt that is no longer the case.....And someone said something about a FREE country!!!! Wake up!!! The government is trying to control everything.....Just as of yesterday the new thing is to control our kids since parents aren't doing too good of a job!!!
At one time this country went along with the founding fathers as marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.....Since this world has become so corrupt that is no longer the case.....And someone said something about a FREE country!!!! Wake up!!! The government is trying to control everything.....Just as of yesterday the new thing is to control our kids since parents aren't doing too good of a job!!!