Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

It's interesting how quickly "constitutionalists" who espouse its embracing abandon that same constitution once it doesn't square with their ideals.

In the case of the "right" to refuse service to someone because of his or her skin color, for instance, I would call those abominably inhuman ideals, and they are rightfully no longer a part of our landscape.

The constitution does not provide for the federal regulation of who individuals consort with, in the privacy of their homes.

It does provide for the federal regulation of interstate commerce. Hence, businesses may no longer discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their gender, their sexuality.

It is morally right and constitutionally prescriptive that businesses may no longer refuse service to someone based on these criteria. Those who would wish for a return to the days of Jim Crow and segregation must learn the country has made its decision properly, and justly, and no amount of stammering for a return to the "good ole days" will alter what has rightly taken place.

 

Not at all. Not as I think you are accusing me of doing. The Commerce Clause is one of the most hotly debated portions of the Constitution. Strong arguments have been made for my perspective, that the commerce clause was not a federal mandate to regulate business.

Now that some judges have interpreted it differently is another matter.

This is a fairly ignorant statement. They may be abominable human ideals, but who really has the moral authority to declare what is and is not evil? Isn't that the basis for our clash with Islam? That they have a different moral standard than we do?

As far as being "rightfully no longer", perhaps you should get out more. Race relations may have improved over time, but as Bogart's posts provide testimony to, bigotry is alive and well in America, regardless of who gets to eat in a restaurant.

Correct. The right to privacy and property.

No, it only has been interpreted that way, again, under much controversy, by judges. It's no different than Roe vs. Wade, which deprives the unborn of the right to life, under the guise of providing for the privacy of the mother (which is a nebulous right in the Constitution at best).

Again, you need to get out. People are discriminated against all of the time. That is what this thread is about. Gay Marriage not being equivalent to straight marriage. Your own arguments indicate that gays have lesser rights than straights when it comes to marriage. And yet you continue to claim that discrimination is no longer possible thanks to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

If that was the case, gay marriage would already be equivalent to straight marriage, wouldn't it?

But the fact remains that people have moral, social, religious whatever perceptions of homosexuality, much as people once saw blacks or women as inferior, or undesirable (in certain circumstances), or disgusting.

So while you argue for no-discrimination, you endorse a system of discrimination, and reverse discrimination by negating the right to have a contrary opinion.

No, it isn't. Whose morals? The same people who think that gay people shouldn't be able to marry?

The government has no business telling people what to do, what to think, who to like etc. None. To argue otherwise is to argue against freedom.

No, the decision is made, based on the bias and opinion of judges. Another judge could come along and overturn those decisions. Suddenly what you think is Constitutional, may no longer be so.

I think you need to investigate the Rehnquist decision, and ask yourself the following.

If Congress cannot regulate non-commercial interstate transactions, can I form a non-profit that discriminates? Can I have separate bathrooms for whites and blacks in my church? What about forming a co-operative of farmers. Can we exercise discrimination if the co-op is non-profit?

It is an interesting loophole isn't it. Of course, there is no place in the Commerce Clause to regulate private property, and without the commercial aspect, the government has no right to do so. I can only assume YOUR justification, is based on that fact that... what? The businesses are for profit? That business is a public enterprise? Rationalize it for me.

It's a quagmire, just like your quagmire about marital rights. About the tyranny of the majority assigning or depriving people of their rights, and your gall to label it, "society".

Mob rule is not society NPT. And a nation of laws, that doesn't respect the universal and uncompromised rights of every individual is the sort of despotism we have sought as a species to rise above.

 

this is all really gay....

 

its allowed in the UK but i dont know about rest of the world.
i dont think it should be allowed. coz that would make a big fuss among the extremists.

 

Actually,

Is a decidedly ignorant statement. It is also a decidedly unconstitutional position, which has been shown. Jim Crow, segregation are also morally repugnant, and saying so isn't what most reasonable people would deem an ignorant statement.

 

I don't think much people care about what an extremist think.

I personally don't care if gay people get married or not. I'm not for it, but as long as it doesn't bother or effect me and gay marriages don't get any "special rights" then what heterosexual marriages receive, who cares. I'm against gay marriages/couples adopting children though.

 

Good post. This is the beginnings of tolerance. People are generally a lot more tolerant when they are not fighting for economic or social advantages. As long as the playing field is level between gays and straights, there is a lot less friction. It's the argument for liberty being a unifying force.

Gunna take a shot at substantive answers to my post? Or are you going to continue dragging the Jim Crow attack from thread to thread, like how the anti-Obama folks try to conflate every position and argument with something nefarious, deserved or not?

I'll summarize for you.

This society, country and culture has not moved completely past racism, sexism, religious intolerance even with the laws being enforced and interpreted in a particular manner. True or false?

Commercial property is not judged by the same rules as personal property because....? Please explain.

In your judgment, should gays have equal rights to straights? Should they have the same marital rights? If not, why?

If you believe gays are entitled to the same rights, why do they not have them under the Constitution?

I can bring the rest around once we get back to discussing the OP and you take a break from the attempts to slander in order to provide some substantive discussion.

 

The defense of Jim Crow was made in this thread. It was destroyed. Please see Post #944, for one, et seq. These will also clarify my positions on equality before the law, in the event this was unclear, as it appears to be for the above poster.

 

I'm still waiting for clarification on your positions, such as the gay marriage is inferior to straight marriage.

In fact, we might as well find out where you stand on gay vs. straight. Do you believe that both have equal rights, or are straight people superior as the law treats them?

 

I respectfully disagree with you that marriage should be a state law question even just for the obvious parade of horribles that follows in having over 50 different perspectives on an important subject that has many additional related items that must be dealt with, e.g. tax and benefits just for starters.

 

I still cannot understand why we have the government determining what is and is not a marriage. Or why a married man gets a greater benefit than a single man (or likewise a woman).

I mean, we obviously are sensitive to the needs of the handicapped, what if someone is too physically or mentally undesirable and unable to find a mate? It's not like "everyone gets married" or has equal access or opportunities for marriage.

So why is this special right conferred on it?

IMO, a potential reason for gay couples to pursue a traditional heterosexual type marriage, is strictly for the economic or social benefits, not for the religious, spiritual or romantic satisfaction of the civil union.

A stated earlier, the government should never be busy creating special interest groups, whether it is gun owners, gays, Christians, foreign nations, homeschoolers, corporations etc. We're all equal, we all get equal treatment and equal access.

 

Hi Slinky,

It isn't a question of "should," or what makes sense, or even what is right. Defending the shameful era of segregation, and Jim Crow laws - the idiocy of white drinking fountains alongside "colored" drinking fountains and so on - is about as morally repugnant as it gets.

No, in our federal system, it must come down to what the constitution says as to what the federal government can, and cannot do. The issue is not neatly settled, constitutionally, as I earlier said. There is nothing I can see that allows the federal government to have a hand in defining what constitutes "marriage," and most cases challenging state initiatives that define marriage as a heterosexual union have either just not made bar at higher jurisdictions, or tossed, if heard.

On the other hand, as with the end of segregation and the Jim Crow laws, there is constitutionally provided for interest in the economic relations engendered by marriage, and here, I think we may see some traction in this area regarding marriages other than heterosexual. Just my guess.

In other words,

Or, as it was apparently missed, what I said early on,

 

Doesn't answer the question of discrimination against single people by providing additional economic benefits to couples.

I've asked several times now. Is this or is it not discrimination? Does everyone have an equal opportunity, possibility and right to be married in order to take advantage of the state's generosity?

As per your continued that segregation is a thing of the past, you are incorrect. In your "society", all it takes is the will of the majority to consign different races to separate bathrooms, drinking fountains and schools.

Right now, gays are being discriminated against. Why does your Constitutional system allow this?

 

Thanks for elaborating. Respectfully, the Jim Crow laws are not comparable to the issue regarding marital rights in any respect. Gays are not segregated and can cohabitate and integrate within society as they wish. Marriage is a legal status that affords some additional economic benefits, one that contemplates additional benefits to help with raising children/dependents. While I understand where you're going, it's absurd to compare the tax benefit to the signficant, daily social segragation of being forced to ride the "colored" bus.

The gay liberation presents a series of other issues that need to be properly provided for that are not extant in an issue of color bias. Black people are the same as white people and can procreate in the same way. Gays are people too but, admittedly, are different in a very recognizable and tangible way that affects a law that was designed not to deal with this difference. Gay marriages will not produce natural children and bring along the entanglements that exist within a child producing heterosexual marriage. As such, this is a more complex issue that needs great thought as to how to be enacted appropriately. Right now I'm seeing a lot of anger about wrongs but not a great deal of thought in ensuring that creating this status for a small but significant percentage of the population that has important tangible differences and which creates different a different dynamic isn't wrought with fraud.

I keep hearing "Jim Crow" and, again, while I'm sympathetic to the cause I think this is exaggeration. The concept of federalism is the need to have a uniform set of laws within the country. By trying to point out how you fail to see how the Constitution prevents the states from enacting legislation is all form over substance. None of this matters if the end result is that you have over 50 different conflicting state laws that cause chaos. What if you have a gay "married" couple from Connecticut that moves to Texas where gay marriage isn't recognized? How about federal benefits? Essentially this is a large issue that needs a uniform recognition throughout the country. The rabble rousing with state laws was done to bring light to the issue and now it's become counterproductive in solving the real issue at hand.

BTW, if you don't think I understand - I do. Every super bowl I can't buy beer for my party on sunday morning because of blue laws. The constitutionality of those are... well... how can I say it... "on its face unconstitutional." So I understand about thee desire not to have wrongful government intervention, etc. but I don't think that this is such a simple matter where you can just say "we're all the same." We're close but there are different issues that need to be settled properly.

 

Slinky, thank you for the thoughts.

Regarding the "Jim Crow" stuff, though, I do think you might be confusing me, perhaps, with another poster, as it was Guerilla and not myself who early on linked his support of Jim Crow and Segregation to the topic of this thread:

And this was simply not true, constitutionally speaking.

Yes, you are quite right, the issue at heart is an issue of federalism:

Or, as I said,

and

And this issue is very much germane to the thread. The federal issues at hand, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the above poster is deeply fearful of, the constitutional challenges raised to it, and, ultimately, the survival of the 1964 Act as constitutionally prescripted (as established in the series of cases I named earlier on this thread), are very much germane. Your example of "gay marrieds" from one state going to a state forbidding such a status is precisely the subject of Atlanta, op cit. (Please see my case cites above).

 

Though I have covered this, it appears difficult for this poster to understand.

Single people married are no longer single people. In this thread I have previously covered the issue of our society's incentives, in the way of enacted laws providing economic benefits, relative to singles, marrieds, married with children:

I don't see anyone suggesting that de facto segregation is a thing of the past, unfortunately. It's just illegal, with consequences.

And during the above poster's apparently cherished era, it was precisely the case that a majority did consign different races to separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, and schools. And enforced this abomination with armed might, to the point of murder.

And the federal government imposed the constitution, to say, no more. The destruction of "States' rights" to Jim Crow laws came about by reliance on law, and not the majority opinion of pointy-headed fools in their racist enclaves within our land.

 

If homosexual couples are allowed to marry to marry then their is no reason why incest couples ad pedophilia couples should not be allowed to get married.

No one is equating homosexuality to any of those other forms of relationships.

What we are saying is marriage is what it is by definition, the religious and even legal union of a man and a woman at a legally defined age.

Straight marriage provides a couple with the tool for the ultimate goal of all living organisms, which is to reproduce. That is the goal of all living organisms and homosexuality goes against that basic goal.

Straight marriage is the only legit. form of marriage by definition, and by anatomical and biological standards. Homosexuals goes against the basic laws of biology and anatomy. Why should it be accepted as a legit. relationshiop when it defies the basic goals of all relationships?

The only excuse anyone has for homosexuals is, "it is love."

Again for anyone with common sense, that is not really a valid point to make. That same argument can be used for incest, pedophilia, beastiality and polygamy.

Straight marriage at its current state is the only legit form of marriage. It gives us the tools we need to keep the basic goals of biology going by giving us the basic anatomical differences and it provides ways to protect individuals from being forced into marriage against their will.

Any other from defies science and nature and is even harmful to society as a whole.

 

This is incorrect.

The issue is whether marriage is a good thing, from the standpoint of society. Our society tends to think so, and rewards marriage accordingly. Our society does not view incestuous couples and pedophile couples as "good things," and so we have laws in place accordingly.

In other words, as a society we still value married couples over committed singles, children or not. The fact such benefits exist without children coming into the equation means there should be no difference, in terms of societal benefit (presumably engendering the benefits accrued to married couples) between childless gay marrieds and childless straight marrieds.

If you do have a problem, accordingly, it must come down to a moral and not a constitutional argument.

As to whether gays would wish to marry solely for love, and not for the numerous benefits available to other marrieds, I can't say for certain, but wouldn't think so. I've listed several things available to spouses that are not available to "significant others." Please see above.

 

"Society deems" doesn't necessarily reflect Constitutional law or the Founders' intent.

At one time, society deemed women to be inferior. Obviously, they are not.

At one time, society deemed blacks to be inferior. Obviously, they are not.

At one time (not that long ago) Japanese and Italian Americans were put into camps due to paranoia about their heritage. Obviously, most if not all were not traitors.

Society or mob rule (as some here would advocate via the tyranny of the majority) is not what the Constitution empowers. Having to go before a judge to exercise your rights, is not what the Constitution empowers. Who you associate with, is not what the Constitution empowers the Federal government to regulate. And counter to what has been posted, the Federal government is not allowed to regulate your private institutions, or the Founders would not have awarded the right to regulate business, but not charity or other personal property/civil unions/social contracts.

You do not get your rights from your fellow citizens. You do not get your rights from the government. These are ideas that have trickled down over time, but are not based on the intent of the Founders. Your rights are self-evident, and given to you by natural law, either through your humanity or your creator. Government exists to protect your rights from the depredations of your fellow citizens who may seek to influence you through state power to their follow own ideological or moral fascinations.

So when someone posts in this thread, that "society" determines morality or rights, that's time for you, straight or gay to be concerned. Your fellow man does not dictate your rights in America, no matter how large his voting block. Liberty and equality before the law is the bedrock of this Republic. It is a nation of laws, not men, and shame on anyone who proposes otherwise.

And with that, I'm done with this topic.

 

Uh, yeah, or in other words,

These "self-evident rights, given to you by natural law," aren't really all that "self-evident" for the American citizens who lived the hell of the above poster's desired scenario:

Are they? Guess that's why, regarding the above poster's desired return to that era,

So, actually

is, as I said at the start, hogwash, constitutionally speaking. Or,