Why should the government have the right to block same-sex marriages?

Question

If this country was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state then why do we not allow gay marriage? But, let me clarify, I agree in respecting the fact that we were founded on Christian principles (ie: keep "God" in the pledge). However, why should we continue to allow religion to govern our laws?

I'm straight, but no gay person's marriage affects me. Why should I care? It doesn't make me feel like my marriage is worth less because two guys get married. It seems that it should be up to the person marrying the couple. If their church doesn't want to, then I have no problem with that - we have no right to force the church's to perform same-sex marriages either.

I just don't see why the government should be able to regulate such religious morality.

As an example: here in Texas, we used to have an anti-sodomy law. I found that absolutely ridiculous, but it has been abolished now. I find gay marriage to be along the same lines in that it shouldn't be banned

Leogirl - don't be absurd. Inter-species marriage would be idiotic and so are you.

FYI - I have still yet to receive an intelligent argument against this point. The only people that are against it (except somewhat Kings) has absolutely no rationality included within their answer. They essentially say, "I don't like queers so they can't get married." Those are the kind of people that ruin this country with their stupidity. If you have a valid argument, I have no problem listening to it and will respect it. I have zero respect for you otherwise.

Answer 1

I really respect the kind of person you are. I participated on your question about poor spelling a few minutes ago, and I think this post about gay marriage is extremely well written too.

I am a gay man, and I find it absurd that people even attempt to justify a ban. America is about liberty and justice for all. You cannot take away some rights, and give them to other people.

Further more... and don't take this the wrong way, I find it hilarious that the government thinks I should care what straight people think about it. Did anybody come to me and ask how I felt about straight marriage? Of course not. So why should I have to ask someone else for permission, when nobody asked me? It is a clear case of trying to bully a minority.

Anyway, I will avoid a big, long rant. You are an intelligent, well rounded person and I truly respect you and think there should be more people like you.

Answer 2

Interspecies marriage... crazy people. Homosexuals are human beings, just like any other human being. They are consentual, they have minds, and thoughts, and make decisions just like you. Two men marrying doesn't compare to marrying an animal or a chair, because the animal or chair don't make a conscious decision to love or marry the person.

Anyway... they have no right to deny the rights for people to be together, and share the same things, but marriage has always been a religious ceremony. The problem here is that by denying marriage rights they deny them rights married couples have in inehritance, influence, and just, well, everything you share legally with your spouse. All marriages should be abolished from the legal system, a civil union system should be put in for everyone (same sex or not) and then marriage should be a ceremonial thing. Basically, anyone should be able to go to the courthouse and get a civil union, then once, that is done, they can go to their church or leader and be married in the religious or ceremonial sense, that way everything will be equal and no one can claim their traditions are being spoilt. It will be up to the person performing the ceremony as to whether or not they want to marry same sex couples or not, and either way, God doesn't ask for your marriage to be recognized by the King of the land for him to recognize the ceremonial marriage.

Everyone can have the civil union benefits, whether it be heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, siblings, children and their parents, cousins, neighbors, best friends not in a sexual relationship, anyone who you would feel should have the benefits you currently have in marriage, then, the ceremonial part can be performed by whomever. That is the only system that is going to work...

Denying homosexuals and their partners the rights that married couples have is inequality and oppresive, but forcing people to adhere to something which violates their beliefs is the same damn thing.

Unfortunately, too many bigots out there who just wanna rank on homosexuals rather than form a real solution. Oppresing them isn't going to make the problem go away. Making a law against homosexual marriage isn't going to stop homosexuals from being together, sharing their lives, and being happy... and denying them equality rights isn't going to get you on God's good side.

Answer 3

The funniest thing about this "issue" is that the people who want gay marriage the most aren't even gay!

As a Divorce attorney, I think gay marriage would be an awesome addition to my income...

As an Estate Planner, I can draft documents for gay couples which will give them all of the legal effects of marriage, excluding the "marriage-benefit" tax...

As a mom, I can tell you that married, heterosexual males deserve all of the benefits our society can give them for staying with and continuing to support their families (because we know that marriage and two parents is the best choice for the benefit of children).

As a strict Constitutionalist, I will tell you that the Federal government has absolutely no place in this debate, whatsoever. This is a State question, and is already being handled by the States...

BTW, this was decided by the S. Ct. before our current one...

Answer 4

The government chooses to license marriage, and as a result can set whatever criteria it wants to achieve that license. When I got married, the licensing process included blood tests and other intrusive questions, so the criteria applied goes beyond simply sexual orientation. The issue has come up for a vote in several states and has been drubbed in everyone of them, when the voters are allowed to decide. Give a single judge the opportunity, and voila, suddenly the mythical right to marriage is created in places like Massachussetts.

Based on the same arguments, why not polygamy? Three consenting adults doesn't affect me, does it?

Since some Christian and other religions support gay marriage, it is not a "religion" thing to prevent gay marriage. The public does not want it legal.

Answer 5

Separation of Church and State refers to legislation and enforcement being OUT of the church's purview, and legislation and enforcement conducted so as not to unfairly or unjustly infringe or oppress any religion.

Nothing I've found in Christian, Islamic or Judaic scripture sanctions male-to-male or female-to-female marriage. Not commenting on the loving and committed nature of such pairings, the rite of marriage, which is RELIGIOUS and not CIVIC, is fairly well-documented as a rite between man and woman. Separating church and state, as you suggest, should absolve the state from executing marriages outside the framework of religion. If a church interprets its dogma and governing religious text to allow same-sex marriages, that is a matter between the betrothed and the church, and so you would see those few churches allowing and sanctioning such marriages (I've not heard of many).

There is a significant amount of homosexual marriages, just like there are more than a few heterosexual marriages, that are undertaken for reasons other than love, commitment, family, etc. With heterosexual marriages, these are usually dissolved once the underlying goal is achieved. This is not the case, usually, with homosexual marriages taking place for reasons other than loving commitment. Benefits (employer, state, etc.) are one of the drivers of these types of marriages, and that is simply an artificial institution that no church or government should sanction.

I think the government gets involved because there is a societal effect. Marriages are a heterosexual tradition, period. There is SANCTITY and HOLINESS in marriage (well, there should be, and that is the open and public intent of the marrying couple). I can't comment on the nature and passion of love in any other relationship than my own. I can say that mankind has been well-served by heterosexual marriages throughout history, as many who are reading and writing this are products of heterosexual marriages (so we are testaments to my assertion). I don't know if homosexual marriages are or aren't productive parenting environments, but I can guess that it may put children in some social predicaments in school or work, but I would also guess that the issue would not be so contentious over time.

I think the anti-sodomy law and the anti-gay marriage law are tradtional reflections of society in our lawmaking. I don't know if it is the government's right or place to manage interpersonal relationships, but I can tell you that the healthier, more productive society is one where the majority of households are two-parent, married households (and some other economic factors thrown in there, that don't apply to this discussion). Can homosexual partners marry and conduct a safe, healthy, productive household? Sure, I think so. Should they? Not up to me, I don't sanction marriages, but I believe only religious bodies should (no government marriages).

I think the worrisome in our lot who fret over Church dogma overriding government decision making are off on two points:

a) Christianity was essential in the founding our nation. The law, societal fabric, evolution and prosperity of our country can all be attributed to the Christian faith in very simple and reasonable terms.

b) the Church (Christian/Judaic/Islamic) is struggling to be a factor in people's lives today (worldwide), so the amount of influence any religion (as opposed to faith) has over the governing and the governed is necessarily overblown by those not subscribing to a religion. FAITH on the other hand, should ALWAYS affect personal judgment, voting and societal governance. FAITH is human, not artificial. FAITH is governing when human governance fails. FAITH is authoritarian, when our judgment and the government are faulty or counter-productive. And FAITH should never be separated from the State, in my opinion. Religion is the government of the faithful, and has a place in providing a forum and guidance for one's faith. But one's faith must be the guide in our decision-making, especially when electing government. And if our faith leads us to elect government that throws the homosexual marriage question back to the churches, then that's what should happen. If our faith leads us to elect government that bans homosexual marriage, then that is the practice of our beliefs, within our society, that governs what can and can't be.

You can't blame government for doing something that is supported by the majority. When that is not the case, I think you have a valid point or grievance.

I agree the Church should make the decision to marry or not. I agree government should stay out of the discussion. I don't agree that any government can or should facilitate the need for ANYONE to get married, unless for whatever reason, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Church to, within their guiding principles and religious texts, conduct the ceremony. To go to the government, to do something no Church would allow, DOES undermine the sanctity and importance of the marriage institution. Finding the weakest link or lowest common denominator to satisfy your personal need is basically thumbing your nose at the society within which you live. You can work towards changing that perception, but skirting it to make a point is not in the spirit of a loving and committed relationship. I think most homosexuals who are in long term relationships and love one another factually, would probably find the need to marry very superfluous or ceremonial. And I think in that respect, they may speak volumes as to the strength of their commitment and the true nature of marriage, at the same time.

Answer 6

It really shouldn't be allowed to. In fact, the attempts of the so-called Religious Right to shove their morality down our throats actually infringes on the rights of numerous religious groups. For example, the UU believes in the equality of everyone.

Just so you know, we weren't actually founded on Christian principles. The founding fathers were Deists, which is about as far as you can get from being Christian while still believing in the Christian god. We are a grand experiment in Enlightenment thinking, and we are more founded on science and rationality than we are on religion. Yeah, sure, parts of the Ten Commandments appear in our lawbooks, but A) most people figure out "thou shalt not kill" on their own and B) the important bits of the Commandments ("thou shalt have no god before me") are completely ignored. There's a difference between being a nation with mostly Christians and being a Christian nation. We are the former, not the latter.

Answer 7

gay people have the right to marry, just not marry people of the same sex, a right that none of us enjoy.

I'm actually for gay marriage as long as we allow polygamy as well. If the argument is that adults should be able to marry who they want and "traditional" notions of marriage are antiquated, we should really implement this ideology and allow polygamy as well as gay marriage.

Everybody wins.

Answer 8

The government has the right (and the responsibility) to outlaw acts which the people see as a crime.

But, I notice that some people arguing for allowing same-sex marriage are using the separation-of-church-and-state arguement. That hold up only if you agree that "if the church is against something, and we have separation of church and state, therefore, the state must be for it."

Answer 9

Technically, the Federal government has no right to ban same-sex marriages because the regulatin of the institution of marriage falls under the auspices of state governments. This is just another conservative scheme to bring to fruition their version of Big Government, one that doesn't help people like social welfare programs, but controls every aspect of their lives.

Answer 10

The federal government should not be able to control anything regarding marriages, this is clearly a states' rights issue. (Although, no level of government should be able to legislate the actions of consenting adults.)