Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566Gay Marriage in California
Posted on May 15, 2008 by Lance
Is it even a big deal? I’m sick of hearing those on the Left cry that all homosexuals should have a “right to marry” as much as I am hearing Christians on the Right act like it is the most important issue in politics today (seconded only to our destruction of all things Muslim with big bombs). There are some things we need to recognize here related to this subject:
- Leftists: No one has a “right” to get married. Each state can define its own “rights” and laws governing marriage.
- Christian Right: Gay marriage isn’t “undoing” the family. If it is, then that is your fault for not teaching people to be good fathers and mothers. Government cannot ban gay marriage and make things any more right than if the Left gets it legalized. Your failure to keep people moral through religious teaching is shining through when you resort to government to try to make up for your mistakes.
There should not even be laws governing marriage as far as I am concerned. Such laws were originally put in place by people who wanted a law dictating that interracial couples could not marry, if I remember correctly.
Well, the folks in ElDorodo, TX will likely be moving to California, and try to get the 400+ kids back. Every argument the Court used is even more applicable to polygamy.
The 10th Amendment was designed for such things as marriage laws. Let states set their own rules, and don’t try to others to accept it under the so-called ‘full faith & credit’ guidelines.
Amen to that, I forgot to stress that states can make their own laws and people outside the state shouldn’t be concerned.
Lance, let’s adopt a child together in Vermont
There are serious legal ramifications vis-a-vis inheritance laws, child custody, visitation rights (in jail and hospital), insurance coverage, and probably some other stuff. Where the Federal government has jurisdiction is in assuring equal protection under the law.
Terry, all of which just as easily covered under civil union laws (and pretty much there, though not quite) and therefore the ‘equal protection’ aspects did not require this ruling. And Ii have yet to here anybody argue that, based on the wording of their ruling, why polygamy is not also so covered.
The ‘discrimination’ against gay marriage is just as applicable of any combination of marriages by consenting adults. Arguing otherwise is the political refusal to slide that far down the slope because it’s too far for most people to go. Yet the logic is the same (actually stronger for historical and religious reasons).
[...] POLITICAL INQUIRER asks in it’s post on Gay Marriage in California, “Is it even a big deal?” Geez, I hope so! It’s the kinda stuff I post about. [...]
MIke,
Polygamy, incest, and gay marriage are all in the same baket as far as I’m concerned - consenting adults should be able to do as they please and live in any combination. But, per equal protection, our marriage laws provide benefits (and penalties) to marraige partners; these benefits and penalties must be available to all alike. I think the solution is to get rid of laws that recognize marriage in any form. Marriage should be a religious or spritual commitment. If any couple or group desires inheritance and property rights protections, etc., they can enter into contracts (civil unions, perhaps) for that purpose. Marriage as a state contract has been a one-stop shopping for these protections, but given that society and culture has changed to recognize gay couple-hood, equal protection demands a change in the law. Examination of said laws and the interconnection with religious beliefs makes me think the government should just get out of the marriage business. Can I get an Amen?