Should gay marriage be a state's rights issue or federal Constitutional issue? If we need a Constitutional ammendment to outlaw gay marriage, does that mean that right now gay marriage is Constitutional?
Traditionally, the rules governing marriage are state issues. Such as legal age, parental consent, how close a cousin is ok, blood testing and waiting periods. So as a matter of law, it is at the state level. In the 60's there was a play called "Futz" about a farmer who married his pig. I think if you want to marry someone who is the same sex should be ok compared to that!
neither. it should be a CHURCH issue. keep this nonsense in the churches. government shouldn't care who is married to who or give anyone a tax break for it. i hear it brought up all the time that if you allow gay marriage, you open the door to polygamy, etc. the real problem is, heterosexual marriage should have never had anything to do with government to begin with! where there's religion in government there's problems. get it all out and keep it in the churches. p. s. as usual, i'm right and 80% will probably disagree with me.
Gordon, I think the church and the government should stay out of this. Leave it to the lawyers. People form partnership agreements all the time for businesses. People have prenuptial agreements too. Let the lawyers do this one. They need the money.....LOL.
Wow, I actually agree with GG. Marriage is an institution of the church, not the government. Therefore the church should oversee it, not the government.
what annoys the hell out of me is that you never hear this view discussed on the news. on the news, it's all about should gays be able to marry, should there be a constitutional amendment, blah blah blah. why is the REAL problem never addressed?!? why do i never hear it questioned that all marriages should be out of government and that this is strictly a church issue?? so annoying.... actually, i know why it isn't discussed....because 80+% of people are religious, don't want religion out of government, and don't want to lose their tax break... so things will stay screwed up.
It probably is constitutional right now, except in those states that have explicitly banned it via their state constitution. But I don't believe that individuals have a federal constitutional "right" to marriage, as it is predominantly a contractual agreement and as such falls under state jurisdiction. My view is that as a contractual agreement, individuals should have to meet the requirements of that contract in order to qualify. Of course, the state legislatures could change those contractual requirements to include more people and different types of unions. At some point down the road I'm sure the Supreme Court will have to get involved in this as the lawsuits start to get filed, and as the laws and practices in various states start to conflict with each other.
Well the left wants government to control marriage for the same reason they want government to control everything. The more control government has, the more power they have. If they could have their way they would regulate the churches the same way they want to regulate everything else. On the right, it's more of a moral issue.
The practical issues are ones of taxation and other financial breaks to those who have the status of being married versus those who are not married. Is there a detailed list anywhere of what the financial benefits of marriage status actually are? Given there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits gay marriages, I don't see how the Supreme Court could rule against gay marriage on a Constitutional basis. That is why there is talk of a Constitutional Ammendment, as right now the courts will have no choice but to defend gay marriage as being "Constitutional." I believe it to be both a state's right issue and a federal issue as long as there are both state and federal financial advantages of having the legal status of "married." However, it does beg the question of whether or not a man could marry a pig in order to get marriage benefits. So there do need to be some guidelines. The law concerning marriage benefits versus non married benefits needs to change, and then this becomes a non issue legally. The moral questions will never go away. Social changes like these take a long time to work themselves out.
Marriage is much more importantly a social insitution, not just church institution. And to the extent that it's a social insitution I think people should be able to have a say in it and not just leave it up to a faggot-dominated liberals to decide for us. My opposition to gay marriage has got nothing to do with religion. I am comfortable admitting I am disgusted by gay sex, as I imagine the vast majority of people are, even if they aren't as willing to admit it. But neither is this the reason for my opposition to gay marriage. If we allow gays to marry and raise families, all the evidence suggests that we increase the likelihood that children raised in such families will turn out gay. Afterall the reasearch and just plain bullshit misinformation that tries to ping homosexuality on genetics, it is just plain obvious that certain environments increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior to emerge. Long term prison inmates for example. Therefore, whilst I have no opposition to gays practising gay sex, I do have a problem with creating a social environment that is likely to increase the incidence of gay sex. And gay sex, I will remind everyone once again, is something that the vast majority of us are disgusted by.