sir_maggie_the_mighty08: blog 
margaret1016's blog
california's top court legalizes gay marriage
Published May. 16, 2008California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's most populous state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
***************************************************************
I thought I'd bring this over here for discussion. Here are my thoughts. . . . The people whom adamantly oppose gay marriage, do so because a marriage is a covenant between a man & a women, correct? According to what I was taught. . .a covenant, in this sense, is also between man (as a species) and God. So, that being the case. . .why would we want the government regulating any religious practice?
In every respect, it is the governments responsibility to make sure that all people are treated equally and every persons rights are protected. Not to make moral judgments based on any singular set of beliefs.
If we truly want religious freedom than we should not ask the government to be involved with any practice of our religions. This benefits everyone. Why? Because it is not possible for the government to enforce the laws of all religion (nor should they), and because it is a thin line between picking a particular religion to espouse. I, for one do not want a religious state, and if Christians really thought about it; they would not either (Ireland? ? ?).
Therefore, in order to ensure the rights of all people; the government should provide protection in the form of a civil union. To any 2 people whom wish to enter one. Why? Because then the government is not presiding over a religious practice. And because no matter what you, or me believe; all people are guaranteed the same protection under the law. Marriage should be left to the individual religions to handle. If your religion doesn't want to allow gay marriage, that would be their right!
In my opinion this is not a question of moral value for the government to handle, it is a question of human rights. Leave the morals to the churches. Your thoughts?
***********************************************************
To clarify- Marriage by the government is not a moral practice. . .which I suppose is my point. The argument I hear against gay marriage is that a marriage can only take place between a man and a women. If in fact marriage by the government is not a moral/religious practice then the gender of the 2 people should have no bearing. . . So the argument is moot. . .
close179 Comments
(8 votes) second-grader left by bus driver
(1 votes) ask fifi: fifi investigates | lucybelle
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
You're badgering the witness, counselor! wew - I'm getting tired. :-D
We also currently deny persons incapable of procreating to the status of marriage because of a genetic danger in their procreation. We also currently deny persons who form groups above two from the same status. Why? The power of compelling government interest.
GOLO member since July 25, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:58 p.m.
So, if they can arbitrarily define a "class" for a compelling interest that does indeed arbitrarily include, they could define a class eligible for marriage for the compelling interest of perpetuating the species, that only includes a man+woman while arbitrarily excluding sterile siblings.
Heck, they already define a marriage arbitrarily as a union between two, don't they? Following this logic, N number of people should be able to get married to each other.
That is unfortunately as far as I can argue in the basis of law.
GOLO member since July 25, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:47 p.m.
I have no problem accepting the possibility that your assertion is correct.
That said, we admit persons incapable of procreating to the status of marriage in spite of their inability to procreate (for a variety of constitutional reasons.)
My question is this: from the standpoint of the law, what difference exists between an infertile or procreationally negative couple seeking to be married and a homosexual couple seeking to be married?
And if one is admitted, what's the (legal) basis for then denying access to the other?
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:32 p.m.
On what do you base your speculation about Congress' intent with respect to tax laws?" -Ken D
I'm sorry for not responding earlier, Ken, I'm having trouble keeping up with all the posts.
I think that providing incentives for marriage coupled with tax credits for children are its way of promoting procreation. They are encouraging marriage and easing the burden of having children. I doubt that you would find any verbiage specifically saying "perpetuation of the species", but I think the spirit is clear.
GOLO member since July 25, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:27 p.m.
Yes, for the specific purpose of preventing the birth defects and genetic abnormalities that can be proven to result from procreation within the limited genetic circumstances present in those situation. The government can show a compelling interest in preventing the outcome, however it can not arbitrarily assert that only fertile members of the class are so regulated, 1) because it creates constitutional problems and 2) because it's unwieldy to try to do so. Hence the broad proscription of the practice itself.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:26 p.m.
GOLO member since July 25, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:21 p.m.
The government has a compelling interest in preventing birth defects and genetic abnormalities, hence the prohibition against brothers & sisters marrying (or indeed, even having sexual intercourse outside of marriage, as with incest laws.) To establish that certain members of that class aren't subject to the dictates, while others are, would be a constitutional problem, hence all members of the class are equally denied access in order to further the compelling interest.
How do you propose to analogize that situation to marriage between consenting couples in a broader sense?
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:09 p.m.
On what do you base your speculation about Congress' intent with respect to tax laws?
GOLO member since January 25, 2008
May 16, 2008 1:08 p.m.
ElCid already addressed this. . .
GOLO member since March 12, 2008
May 16, 2008 1:07 p.m.
Asked and answered. The basis is the same used to deny sterile siblings or siblings willing to assume the burdens and responsibilities to effect a legal joining.
GOLO member since July 25, 2007
May 16, 2008 1:06 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.