Topic: Is Same Sex Marriage a Constitutional Right?
started by: alcitizens
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 05 2010,6:08 am
The legality of same-sex marriage has come under scrutiny. It is good to examine seemingly new philosophies and perspectives; how else can we determine the rightness of something? But what hasn’t been considered is the legality of denying same-sex marriage.Article Four of the Federal Constitution states:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
In other words, no State has the right to ignore civil agreements reached in other States. So if a same-sex couple in Massachusetts gets married after 2004-May 16th, no State has the right to ignore that marriage. In fact, all States are required to recognize that marriage, because it is a Civil matter. What this essentially means is that State Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) are unconstitutional, plain and simple.
What about the Federal DOMA? Sorry, that, too, will be struck down soon, as it also is unconstitutional by virtue of the Tenth Amendment, which states:
"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."
Because the Constitution does not explicitly give the Federal Government jurisdiction over marriage, the right to regulate marriage is, by default, given solely to the States to decide. Therefore, Congress had neither right nor power to pass DOMA in the first place.
The solution, some may argue, is to amend the Federal Constitution, which is what George W. Bush endorses. There is one problem with that: Article Six reads:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Boiled down, this means that the Constitution is barred from contradicting itself. Thus, a Federal Marriage Amendment that would deprive a singled-out populace of any rights runs in clear contradiction to Article Four and Amendment Nine of the Constitution. Amendment Nine states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution says in Amendment Fourteen:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What this basically means is that the States do not have a right to pick and choose the people to whom it will grant rights and privileges. If one group of people is allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry. If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgement of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States; it would be a deprivation of liberty and prosperity, and would strip same-sex couples of equal protection of the laws. Plainly, it is discriminatory, and the Fourteenth Article clearly states that selective granting of privileges is not allowed in the United States.
< http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm >
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 05 2010,9:02 am
Exactly 
What the constitutional articles are for is to protect the citizens.
To protect the human being, the male, the female, no matter if they are black, white, green, purple, red, doesn't matter.
Most would be in agreement with that.
The protection of American Citizen's and their rights under the constitution as American Citizen's and most opposed to gay marriage would agree.
Most opposed to gay marrage to not discriminate against the human being, the person...it's the behavior
Posted by gijoeman on Aug. 05 2010,9:33 am
No, it's a human right.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 05 2010,10:48 am
(Santorini @ Aug. 05 2010,9:02 am)
QUOTE
Most opposed to gay marrage to not discriminate against the human being, the person...it's the behavior
Why?
Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 05 2010,2:54 pm
(gijoeman @ Aug. 05 2010,9:33 am)
QUOTE
No, it's a human right.
Posted by gijoeman on Aug. 05 2010,5:02 pm
Thank you, welcome to true faith my friend...
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 05 2010,10:49 pm
QUOTE
The protection of American Citizen's and their rights under the constitution as American Citizen's and most opposed to gay marriage would agree.
Larry Flynt: “Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.”
Posted by Two Bears on Aug. 06 2010,2:20 am
(Botto 82 @ Aug. 05 2010,10:48 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Aug. 05 2010,9:02 am)
QUOTE
Most opposed to gay marrage to not discriminate against the human being, the person...it's the behavior
Why?
Because it's ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE.
Posted by gijoeman on Aug. 06 2010,9:32 am
So you're going to punish today's people for some bible snake story that was obviously fiction written by men before they new what an atom or germ was?Ya, yer a regular Einstein.
Posted by Two Bears on Aug. 06 2010,11:25 am
Were you discharged because of the don't ask don't tell policy?Hey if it is so moral to be a homo why do you hide in the closet? Because you know it's wrong.
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 06 2010,11:33 am
It's taken me many years and much research to become tolerant of a small group of people that in most cases work hard, pay taxes, are willing to sacrifice their lives for our country, give unwanted children a loving home and are loyal to their country.Then you have extremist groups that want nothing but harm to come to our country that are allowed to get married to fellow radicals and are protected by our constitution to live the American Dream, that which they would like to destroy..
Which people are really a danger to our society?
Posted by fredbear on Aug. 06 2010,11:54 am
Is opposite sex marriage a CONSTITUTIONAL right? What does marriage have to do with the Constitution anyways?
What really is marriage? An agreement between 2 people that ,apparently by todays standards, is open to interpretation by the individuals involved.
Hell, get rid of the voodoo ritual of marriage altogether.
But if going to stick around, homosexuals should be able to suffer right along with the heterosexuals.
Posted by Two Bears on Aug. 07 2010,10:29 am
(alcitizens @ Aug. 06 2010,11:33 am)
QUOTE
It's taken me many years and much research to become tolerant of a small group of people that in most cases work hard, pay taxes, are willing to sacrifice their lives for our country, give unwanted children a loving home and are loyal to their country.
Then you have extremist groups that want nothing but harm to come to our country that are allowed to get married to fellow radicals and are protected by our constitution to live the American Dream, that which they would like to destroy..
Which people are really a danger to our society?
Then you have extremist groups that want nothing but harm to come to our country that are allowed to get married to fellow radicals and are protected by our constitution to live the American Dream, that which they would like to destroy..
Which people are really a danger to our society?
For god sakes - you have to compare homo mariage to extremist groups ?
Is that the only way you can make them look good?
Get real it's wrong.
Posted by jazzy jeff on Aug. 07 2010,11:22 am
Does same sex marriage really effect me? No. "But if going to stick around, homosexuals should be able to suffer right along with the heterosexuals". Exactly.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 07 2010,12:02 pm
(Two Bears @ Aug. 07 2010,10:29 am)
QUOTE
Get real it's wrong.
Sure, you say that now, but I bet you've rubbed one out to a video of two girls getting it on before...
You can't have it both ways...
Posted by scary on Aug. 07 2010,2:00 pm
(Botto 82 @ Aug. 07 2010,12:02 pm)
QUOTE
(Two Bears @ Aug. 07 2010,10:29 am)
QUOTE
Get real it's wrong.
Sure, you say that now, but I bet you've rubbed one out to a video of two girls getting it on before...
You can't have it both ways...
Interesting show on iptv, currently watching it. Called "out in the silence"
I am not gay and have a hard time understanding it.
Hopfully some of you will watch it.
It reminds me of albert lea.
The school board was/is like albert lea's city leaders, the trib, the chamber, etc.. (set rules; time limits of speaking, topics that can be brought, etc..) if it is not their agenda, they don't want to hear it.
The religious faction stated that it is against what god planned.
My question is, (if you believe in god) didn't god create all of us? If he did, then it is gods fault.
I think that this will pi$$ some of you off, that's okay, maybe it will open some of you minds.
Remember this, we are all human beings, no matter our race, religion, sexual preferance, etc..
S
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 07 2010,2:26 pm
Why does anyone care if a person chooses to spend their life with someone of the same sex? I think it's a perfect example of the Christian majority forcing their beliefs on the non-Christian minority.
Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 07 2010,4:37 pm
My church is opposed to same sex marriage, therefore I am in favor of same sex marriage...waiting to be shunned/dropped/deleted/excommunicated.ps: I am not gay & I have a ton of kids to prove it
Posted by Two Bears on Aug. 07 2010,7:17 pm
So you are ok with homos hitching up, what about the schools teaching our kids about homo sexuality?
Posted by jazzy jeff on Aug. 07 2010,9:01 pm
like i said, it doesn't effect me so I really dont care. If you love someone, marry them. As far as teaching kids, all of my children know about gays/lesbians. I take pride in teaching my children to respect people for not what they are but who they are.
Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 07 2010,9:21 pm
Gay people are every where. I don't understand the same sex attraction, but.... Who cares? My kids tell me about gay students in their schools; they are very much aware of things, much more so than I am. It is what it is. I preach tolerance.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 07 2010,11:07 pm
homosexual marriage heterosexual marriage, just an institution equal to marriage for the gays, civil unions, your religious values are yours, it's not for you to judge others..A committed union between two people makes for a more stable society..
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 07 2010,11:21 pm
QUOTE
.A committed union between two people makes for a more stable society..
How so?
QUOTE
homosexual marriage heterosexual marriage, just an institution equal to marriage for the gays, civil unions, your religious values are yours, it's not for you to judge others
If that is the case, then why not allow plural marriage then? After all it is not your place to judge.
Posted by nphilbro on Aug. 08 2010,12:04 am
To me, it's strictly an issue of access to hospital and hospice, inheritance and right to legal authority without a clearly defined will- but an assumed executor as surviving partner.Our parents can hate our spouces but there is an assumed authority by being one and they don't have much to say over our estates vs. the surviving partner.
I have a gay friend that found himself on the curb with just a few clothes after his 10 year partner had a heart attack and his partner's family came in and kicked him out. He and his current partner now have been together for 7 years and recently purchased a house together.
Marriage is about love, promises, and monogomy. Who, that follows that thinks gay commitment is going to jeopardize "traditional" marriage? Maybe we should all try to learn more from those that have successful marriages.
We heteros can get married to a hooker in Vegas. What are we trying to protect?
Posted by Two Bears on Aug. 08 2010,9:35 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 07 2010,11:21 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
homosexual marriage heterosexual marriage, just an institution equal to marriage for the gays, civil unions, your religious values are yours, it's not for you to judge others
If that is the case, then why not allow plural marriage then? After all it is not your place to judge.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 08 2010,10:20 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 07 2010,11:21 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
.A committed union between two people makes for a more stable society..
How so?
Part of me can't stand these flaming gays you see in Gay Pride parades on the other hand I've had to deal with a couple of gals at work who are living together in a stable relationship, admittedly lesbians..They're not bothering anyone, they work, pay tax, they keep thier property up, (stable society) why shouldn't they be allowed to have a civil union and the protections it provides?.
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 08 2010,11:29 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 07 2010,11:21 pm)
QUOTE
If that is the case, then why not allow plural marriage then? After all it is not your place to judge.
You don't have to marry more than one person to become a swinger. You just have to have consent from your spouse to swing and vice versa.
I think our society would be doing good if they could handle one marriage.
QUOTE
TLC's 'Sister Wives' reality show will document a polygamist family
< http://www.latimes.com/enterta...6.story >
< http://www.latimes.com/enterta...6.story >
Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 08 2010,3:48 pm
I have no problem with polygamy between consenting adults, now my wife, on the other hand......
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 08 2010,10:44 pm
QUOTE
You don't have to marry more than one person to become a swinger. You just have to have consent from your spouse to swing and vice versa.
Sigh, reading comprehension is kinda lost on you. Didn't even mention a swinging lifestyle. Plural marriage and swinging are two totally different things.
LOL @ hairhertz - aint that the truth
Here is the thing if it is allowed to include gays gettin' hitched and all, where do you draw the line on what is or is not marriage?
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 09 2010,12:40 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Aug. 08 2010,10:44 pm)
QUOTE
Here is the thing if it is allowed to include gays gettin' hitched and all, where do you draw the line on what is or is not marriage?
Mr. Funny Dragon, You ask "where do you draw the line on what is or is not marriage." I told you that our society would be doing good if they could handle one marriage.
To me Polygamy is Plural Marriage, and Swinging is Marriage that gives couples mutual consent to have sex with others. Those that swing don't commit adultery because they give each other mutual consent and are not involved in more than one marriage..
Posted by JackButt on Aug. 09 2010,5:02 pm
I think there is a simple question that might turn on the light bulb for a few of you.If you are a guy : When did you decide to like girls? .... what's that? It wasn't a conscious decision? You always just knew you liked girls?
It's time we stopped discriminating or hating people for something, that for the vast majority, they cannot control.
Just as I don't tell people what I do with my wife in our bedroom, who cares what they are doing in theirs?
Posted by busybee on Aug. 10 2010,12:15 am
QUOTE
To me, it's strictly an issue of access to hospital and hospice, inheritance and right to legal authority without a clearly defined will- but an assumed executor as surviving partner.
Our parents can hate our spouces but there is an assumed authority by being one and they don't have much to say over our estates vs. the surviving partner.
Our parents can hate our spouces but there is an assumed authority by being one and they don't have much to say over our estates vs. the surviving partner.
That's how I view this issue also.
Posted by bianca on Aug. 10 2010,12:42 am
^ I've always wondered about the legalities of these unions. I know this woman that had promissory ceremonies, in lieu of Minnesota not allowing gay marriage. They lived together for a couple of years as partners and then decided to part ways. It was easier for them to "walk away" than it is for heterosexuals as there is no divorce proceedings to go through. I've always thought that could/would be quite difficult in the way of deciding who gets the house if both names are on it? Would one have to sue the other if it ended in less than friendly terms and then the judge would decide?
Posted by gijoeman on Aug. 10 2010,12:55 pm
No fault divorce is a crock. If one spouse carries on a relationship outside the marriage and then leaves, half shouldn't be on the menu. This is like a business deal where one side cheated and the other side should receive fair compensation. However, this is one of the few reasons I'd allow to contest fair divide. You argue a lot and don't get along...well, then it's a 50/50 split.
Posted by busybee on Aug. 11 2010,3:32 am
QUOTE
No fault divorce is a crock. If one spouse carries on a relationship outside the marriage and then leaves, half shouldn't be on the menu.
So, Gijoeman...How would YOU PROVE one spouse didn't contribute to at least earning half of the marital assets gained during the course of the marriage because of an accusations by the other spouse that infidelity occured??
What about if there are children in common?
Do you really think children in common between a couple (married or separated) care if mom or dad has the living room furniture or why a Judge granted this to one parent and not the other in their divorce?
Try looking at divorce proceedings in the U.S. from a child's point of view instead of as an adult victim's viewpoint...
Try to do so without compromising the TRUTH and JUSTICE as it should be RULED based upon the RIGHTS of INNOCENT CHILDREN!
Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 14 2010,9:28 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 05 2010,10:49 pm)
QUOTE
Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.