NationStates Jolt Archive

I rarely do serious posts...but...


Okay, now this is in reference to the 'Gay Marriage Amendment' that was shot down in the Senate. However, this is NOT about Gay Marriage. Try very hard to suspend your opinion about whether or not gay couples should be allowed to wed, because that is not relevant to this discussion.

Now. In this proposed amendment, but narrowly defining marriage, the proponents of this amendment attempted to use a constitutional amendment to limit who has a certain right and who does not. They tried to take the right of marriage away from certain people. Am I the only one who is sickened by these actions SIMPLY ON THE BASIS of using the constitution as a tool to take rights away from people? The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to PROTECT and Detail our rights, not to eliminate them. This proposed amendment was contrary to everything the Bill of Rights stands for.

Second, and most interestingly, there already is a constitutional amendment that deals directly with the topic of Gay Marriage.

The First Amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This states very clearly that the Congress cannot make laws that create a bias toward any religion nor can they limit religious practices(that don't interfere with other rights). The impact of this is that since Marriage is a religious rite with recognized legal ramifications, Congress is NOT in the business of deciding who gets married. That responsibility rests solely in the hands of religion. If a church does not want to marry a gay couple, they don't have to. If a church decides that a gay couple can get married, Congress as NO POWER TO REFUTE THIS! Neither do the states, as it is a right protected by the Bill of Rights.

For congress to even decide which church's marriages to recognize legally and which ones not to would be a violation of the First Amendment.

You are very correct sir.
However, the states themselves DO have the right to make it illegal.
They even have made laws prohibiting sodomy.
These laws arent usually enforced, but they do exist.

There are Republicans, even, who object to the gay marriage proposals, becuase it is certainly unconstitutional for Congress to pass a FEDERAL law that prohibits gay marriage for the reasons you explain.

This is why no Federal bill that bans gay marriage will ever pass the floor.

You are very correct sir.
However, the states themselves DO have the right to make it illegal.
They even have made laws prohibiting sodomy.
These laws arent usually enforced, but they do exist.

There are Republicans, even, who object to the gay marriage proposals, becuase it is certainly unconstitutional for Congress to pass a FEDERAL law that prohibits gay marriage for the reasons you explain.

This is why no Federal bill that bans gay marriage will ever pass the floor.

Actually, the states can make any laws they want, but if one fights such laws on contitutional grounds, and the courts find those laws to be unconstitutional, the state's laws are meaningless.The Constitution and Bill of Rights supercede all state laws. It's in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

:)

You are very correct sir.
However, the states themselves DO have the right to make it illegal.
They even have made laws prohibiting sodomy.
These laws arent usually enforced, but they do exist.

(a) Regarding marriage, states can make it illegal to give a certain marriage (although this may be deemed unconstitutional), but cannot deny couples recognition of their marriage if they were married in another state. (Don't even start spouting about DOMA - that law is unconstitutional on its face and just needs to be challenged.

(b) All of the sodomy laws that have been challenged in the courts have been struck down as unconstitutional.

I rarely do serious posts...but...I was very disappointed when I saw this bit

There is the full faith and credit clause, which makes things a little complex. If gay marriages were allowed to be performed in one state, they'd have to be recognised in all the others, which does sorta make it more than just a state issue.

I think we all know that the Republicans probably think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "too damn liberal!"

I think we all know that the Republicans probably think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "too damn liberal!"

Parts of it are very right wing..

For this though, it only stops the government interfering in the rights of the church and individuals, it would therefore be up to the church as opposed to the states to decide upon it wouldn't it? And couldn't that also mean that the right could be denied at registrars.

Being married isn't a right?...and you're right it's a religous rite..so other then a few United Methodist, and other fringe Protestant group, no religous entity of any size favors gay marriage....so do you truly wish to leave it up to the Church to decide who gets married?..if so you'd best believe that no Catholic, Southern Baptists, Pentecostal, Church of God, Church of Christ and a host of other Protestant faiths will ever marry a homosexual.

Now..the only benefit to being married is the legal ramifications right...so let's just propose a Civil Union which will cover not only homosexuals but live in heterosexuals or other non-religous types..If all they want is the right to be able to live together as a couple..to take advantage of the same rights that married heterosexuals enjoy..then gays should be more then thrilled to endorse a Civil Union...

The fact that no other civilization in history has endorsed gay marriage..or unless gay activists just want to rock the boat for principle in that they want the word "married" on a license...marriage has been for millenia as typically personified by a man and a woman. By trying to hijack this definition, gays do themselves a disservice from obtaining a larger goal..the legal aspects that a married couple gets..if you truly want to be viewed as equal..then a gay/lesbian will endorse a Civil Union..and leave the government out of marriage.

What was left off of this post:

Marriage is both a religious ceremony, and a civilly recognized union. The Government can define marriage in a civil sense without caring what churches do or do not.

After all, the Catholic Church can refuse to marry you if you are not Catholic. It's their house and so it's their rules. The government will not force them to marry you. Alternately the Catholic Church may not recognize that an Anglican couple truly is married in the eyes of the Catholic Church given that they did not bless that union.

Alternately again, the Divine Order of the PoodlePals could decide to allow people to marry their pets, but that would not force the government to recognize the marriage, nor would it make bestiality any more legal.


The government having a position on Gay Marriage is thjerefore totally irrelevant to religious matters - even if most who want to deny that right do so for religious reasons. What the ammendment was intended to state only related to the civil definition of marriage for matters of tax laws, legal benefits, etc.


So no - technically this in no way violates the First Ammendment. Any church can choose to bless gay unions, and the government's reponse is simply to refuse to acknowledge this as a legal fact under it's own definitions.

i.e. the reverse is also true - that no religion can make rules and impose them upon the government.

What was left off of this post:

Marriage is both a religious ceremony, and a civilly recognized union. The Government can define marriage in a civil sense without caring what churches do or do not.

After all, the Catholic Church can refuse to marry you if you are not Catholic. It's their house and so it's their rules. The government will not force them to marry you. Alternately the Catholic Church may not recognize that an Anglican couple truly is married in the eyes of the Catholic Church given that they did not bless that union.

Alternately again, the Divine Order of the PoodlePals could decide to allow people to marry their pets, but that would not force the government to recognize the marriage, nor would it make bestiality any more legal.


The government having a position on Gay Marriage is thjerefore totally irrelevant to religious matters - even if most who want to deny that right do so for religious reasons. What the ammendment was intended to state only related to the civil definition of marriage for matters of tax laws, legal benefits, etc.


So no - technically this in no way violates the First Ammendment. Any church can choose to bless gay unions, and the government's reponse is simply to refuse to acknowledge this as a legal fact under it's own definitions.

i.e. the reverse is also true - that no religion can make rules and impose them upon the government.

Thank you Zep..not sure if I covered all my points adequately...You always do a better job of explanations then practically any other poster I've seen here (blatant suck up response, now where is my cookie)..Anyway...I say let's just take "marriage" out of the hands of the government....legal aspects would be resolved in a Civil Union license..and allow for marriages to be done by any religous institution that wants to recognize them.

That's the most reasonable compromise, Salishe.

Part of the reason that many in the gay rights movement insist on the use of the word marriage is because of the history of the civil rights movement, the argument of separate but equal. They have reason--it's obvious that many in power today would happily write discrimination into the Constitution, so any legislation that didn't confer complete equality for same-sex couples would leave an opening for regulatory discrimination.

I'm with you guys--make every state ceremony a civil union open to every couple and turn the word marriage into a religious-only, non-legally binding term.

The fact that no other civilization in history has endorsed gay marriage
Denmark, the Netherlands.

And Canada. Canada also endorsed Gay Marriage if I recall properly.

Me.

What was left off of this post:

Marriage is both a religious ceremony, and a civilly recognized union. The Government can define marriage in a civil sense without caring what churches do or do not.

After all, the Catholic Church can refuse to marry you if you are not Catholic. It's their house and so it's their rules. The government will not force them to marry you. Alternately the Catholic Church may not recognize that an Anglican couple truly is married in the eyes of the Catholic Church given that they did not bless that union.

Alternately again, the Divine Order of the PoodlePals could decide to allow people to marry their pets, but that would not force the government to recognize the marriage, nor would it make bestiality any more legal.


The government having a position on Gay Marriage is thjerefore totally irrelevant to religious matters - even if most who want to deny that right do so for religious reasons. What the ammendment was intended to state only related to the civil definition of marriage for matters of tax laws, legal benefits, etc.


So no - technically this in no way violates the First Ammendment. Any church can choose to bless gay unions, and the government's reponse is simply to refuse to acknowledge this as a legal fact under it's own definitions.

i.e. the reverse is also true - that no religion can make rules and impose them upon the government.


Pure common sense, you are to be applauded.
Churches do not have to marry gay couples if they so choose but the right should be granted in non religious institutions like registry offices and the like....

In the end, the churches can still maintain their 'holy purity' and homosexuals can marry in non-religeous places, their marriage would be legally ratified though not 'spiritually ratified' unless they can find a holy place willing to accommodate homosexuality. This arrangement seems fair to both sides.

Let me rephrase....aside from what..4 countries...gay marriage is not recognized...I'm talking civilizations as a whole here people..not individual nation-states..Not in the entire written history of man on this planet has civilization as a whole endorsed the idea that marriage is anything other then between a man and a woman.

That's true, Salishe, but it's also true that the definition of marriage has hardly remained stagnant over time. Marriage today is far different from what it was even fifty years ago thanks to no-fault divorce and the movement in women's rights.

My point is that just because no society has yet embraced same-sex marriage wholeheartedly doesn't mean that there's no reason to do so now. It's just the next natural step in human rights as far as I'm concerned.

Actually if you read the Federalist Papers, the spirit of the constitution is limited government, so really they shouldn't be passing any legislation on marriage or love at all and should instead just give civil unions for legal reasons

:) :fluffle:

I rarely do serious posts...but...

remembered the pills then, ey?
:p

Indeed. It never fails to amaze me how the people who scream the loudest about smaller government generally try to use it to encroach on individual freedoms.

My opinion is that any government involvement in marriage, since it is a religious institution, is unconstitutional. However, a way is needed to legally bind homosexual and heterosexual couples. Solution:

Civil unions for anyone who wants one- you want to get a civil union with a person of the same sex, fine. You want to get married to fifty other people and that pinecone over there, fine. Who cares?

Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Temples decide whom to "Marry."

The reason some would have a problem with that, is that some religious organizations WERE letting people of the same-sex marry.

And fundamentalists can't have that ;)

...Ever notice how, in order to get "fundamentalist," you need "mental?" ;)