Someone said that marriage is not a constitutional right. That it is a matter to be handled by the church not the state, and that's the reason gays shouln't be allowed to marry. They think since the church says marriage is between a man a woman then the federal and state government has the right to not recognize gay marriages or even allow them! What do you think?
2007-01-12 17:38:52 · 13 answers · asked by qdeezy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
The constitution makes it clear that the government shall make no distinction between any two groups of people, which is exactly what they are doing when they rule against gay marriage.
Regardless of what any religion has to say about it, preventing gays from getting married is a direct violation of the constitution, and no manner of wording can change that.
2007-01-12 17:59:22 · answer #1 · answered by Jeffrey 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given: Gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution.
Fact: Our founding fatherse wrote the constitution in way that it could be modified to fit the times. (ammendments) They had the foresight to see that out country would evolve throughout time and our governing document needed to keep up with those times.
Another fact: I don't recall heterosexuak marriage being mentioned in there either.
Fact number 3: Separation of church and state was the principle of the founding of our country. Our forefathers came from a country where the church (The Church of England)was the governing body. They were not allowed religious freedoms and wanted such.
Opinion: If gays and lesbians cannot be married because "the church" does not sanction it, heterosexuals should give up all of the priviledges afforded to them by the goverment due to their marital status. The only priviledges that they deserve are the ones afforded them by "the church". This means no joint filing of income taxes. No tax breaks for having children in their union. No family medical insurance. No say when their partner is sick and in the hospital. No community property rights.
You cannot have it both ways. Everyone must abide by the same standards.
2007-01-13 00:37:58 · answer #2 · answered by Friskie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's faulty logic....try getting married in a church but not filing a marriage license with the government. See how legal your union is then. If the government had nothing to do with it, and it was all handled by churches (overlooking, I suppose, all the people who were married by JPs) then why do we need state issued marriage licenses at all? Why do we go to court for divorces? The government is entirely involved, even if they'd like to wash their hands of the whole thing to save face.
2007-01-12 17:43:19 · answer #3 · answered by a heart so big 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word marraige is no where mentioned within the constitution... however, under the 10th Amendment, that would leave the right of marraige under the jurisdiction of a state. thats why when two people get married, a priest will say "by the power invested in me by the great state of..." and not the "United States".
2007-01-13 10:05:38 · answer #4 · answered by gorthaur 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bit of a contradiction there, eh? the Constitution also says separation of church and state, so if marriage is a church matter the government shouldn't recognize ANY marriage.
2007-01-12 17:43:33 · answer #5 · answered by Dashes 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're two separate things really.
There's the church aspect of it - the joining of man and woman as husband and wife in the eyes of God, yadda, yadda
Then there's the legal aspect of it - that a 'contract' has been created between two people to which they are entitled certain benefits and claims (taxes, joint income, etc).
If anything, the idea of 'constitutional' marriage would stem from the basic homophobia of the Christian church and their biblical espousing of it being against God - I can see how that would cause the primarily Christian politics of this land, especially in the past, to pass this idea into law.
2007-01-12 17:48:30 · answer #6 · answered by Lucy_Fur 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yay gay marriage!!!
If marriage is entirely religious, then anyone who doesnt believe in God and such couldnt be allowed to get married, which would be discrimination, so outlawing gay marriage is discrimination, based on sexual orientation. well not really, sinse dubya believes in gay marriage as long as its between a gay man and gay woman.
and heteros often say, "Why do gays get special rights?"
and I answer, Why are we persecuted for 'Special Wrongs'?
2007-01-12 18:28:50 · answer #7 · answered by Joey 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we need to seriously seperate legal marriage from religious marriage. If that means the end of legal "marriage", and we ALWAYS call it something else (for everyone), fine. If it means we just go on specifying "legal marriage" or "matrimony", fine. But something's gotta happen.
2007-01-13 02:37:19 · answer #8 · answered by Atropis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage
Dashes is misinformed directly above. There is no "separation of church and state" that appears in the Constitution.
2007-01-12 17:44:04 · answer #9 · answered by Joe C 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Since marriage is divinely inspired and naturally defined with a male and a female, technically "gays" can never be married. They should call it something else like "garriage" and do that.
2007-01-12 17:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋