Legitimate question...not looking for partisan rhetoricl...?

Question

I am interested in learning and understanding how gay marriage could hurt the institution of marriage...from a legal standpoint. I understand how many could feel that it would make a farce of the institution, but I'm interested in learning about the legal implications. Afterall, how can something be banned on a moral level?

Answer 1

Such a great question. It is inconceivable to me how someone could possibly think that gay people getting married could "hurt" the institution of marriage. I think what they're trying to say is that with 66% of marriages ending in divorces, that allowing more people to marry can only hurt marriage.

In reality to suggest such a thing would be to believe that gay people have a higher, or even lower for those who make the argument that gay marriage would help strengthen the institution of marriage, susceptibility rate of getting tired of their spouse, and filing for a divorce. This is scientifically unproven, and even absurd. Gay people getting married will not help or hurt marriage. If anything it will show that in America we believe so much in the value of people committing themselves to another single person for life, rather than having meaningless, spontaneous relationships for just sexual purposes, that we allow all people, regardless or their sexuality, make this kind of commitment.

Answer 2

I don't see how it can. Legally, a marriage is a specialized contract between two people.

At one time, mixed race marriages were banned in many states, mostly in the South. But they didn't seem to upset matters of property rights or inheritance, or any other legal matter dealing with marriage. And now no state bans mixed race marriages. Hopefully the same thing will happen with gay marriages.

For those who find gay marriage "morally wrong", I would suggest that your church have their own special religious ceremony where gays are not allowed. Because of seperation of church and state, I think this would be permissable. Right now, I know that certain Baptist sects practice a "covanent marriage", where the parties vow never to divorce. Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas has one of these. Perhaps they will gain popularity among religious people.

Answer 3

Basically this is a moral issue. Most of our laws are based on moral issues. Prostitution is illegal and immoral, adultry in some states is illegal and immoral and so forth. Gay marriage falls in the same catagory. One of the areas of opposition is that it will increase costs pertaining to health insurance, retirement and so forth. This will open the door for these benefits to a section of the population that previously didn't have access to these benefits. Homosexual activities have only been fully legal in the United States for only a couple of years-prior to that various states had laws on the books that prohibited sodomy (oral and anal sex), specified only certain sexual positions and so forth were legal. It took a Supreme Court decision to get rid of these laws. Much of what is going on is related to this new view that the government has no say in the bedroom. Outside of this, is the questions of increased costs to small businesses and corporations as a whole. The costs of a straight couple are pretty straight forward and tacked down fairly well. Associated costs for a gay (I am referring to both male/male and female/female) couple is unknown. I personally don't think that it will be that signifcantly higher than that of a straight couple and would probably be less as there are no children to consider.

Answer 4

NO ONES ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT NOT ALL GAY PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN MARRIAGE. THE GAY LOBBY SPEAKS AND THEY BEHAVE AS IF THEY SPEAK FOR ALL. THERE IS MANY REASON WE SHOULD'NT LET GAY PEOPLE MARRY-- THE DON'T QUALIFY. MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION FOR A MAN AND A WOMEN WHO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO EACH OTHER-- THAT IS WHAT SOCIETY IS -- OTHERWISE WE HAVE NO STRUCTURE. NATURE MADE IT NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT A ,MAN AND MAN CAN NOT PROCREATE OR A WOMEN AND WOMEN CAN NOT PROCREATE. WE IN SOCIETY THINK MEN AND WOMEN GET MARRIED FOR THE BENEFITS--THAT IS HOW CALLOUS SOCIETY GOTTEN -. CHILDREN NEED A MOTHER AND A FATHER. TWO WOMEN CANNOT TEACH A YOUNG MAN HOW TO BE A MAN OR TWO MEN CAN NOT SHOW A YOUNG LADY HOW TO BE A WOMEN. LOVE ISN'T ENOUGH -- ITS NOT BECAUSE I THINK GAYS ARE PERVERSE OR HORRIBLE PEOPLE---JUST A BIT SELFISH. AS A MARRIED PERSON I THINK AS PART OF THIS STRUCTURE I SOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHO I WANT TO BE PART OF THIS INSTITUTION--WHICH I DO THINK IS SACRED. WE DON'T ALL BELONG AT MIT --WE WANT ONLY THE BRIGHTEST THERE OTHER IF EVERYONE WAS ALOUD TO GO THERE BEING THERE MEANS NOTHING--YOU NO LONGER STANDOUT. THERE NOTHING WRONG WITH EXCLUSION IF EXCLUSION IS SO THE CREAM RISES TO THE TOP. ALL OUR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS ARE THIS WAY,JOBS ARE HAD THIS WAY--OUR SOCIETY IS BASED ON THIS . NO I DON'T WANT THEM RAISING KIDS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GIVE THE CHILD WHAT THEY NEED. MARRIAGE IS THE WAY IT IS TODAY BECAUSE OF THE CALLOUS ATTITUDE PEOPLE HOLD TOWARDS THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.

Answer 5

The only legal implications are that the government treats it like a contract and it is written into the tax code, which would make any ban a violation of the constitution. That is why the federal government won't touch it, that and Republicans don't want to lose the votes that they get from it being an issue.

Answer 6

I agree that the implications of this in a purely legal respect have to do more with money than anything else (purely legal sense, remember that). Having said that, I also have the following to add to this. First, I'd like to say that I have a feeling that homosexuals have little regard for anyone other than their own selves. The human race needs male and female couples to procreate - perpetuation of the species. Without this, the rest of it becomes quite a moot point.

The next issue is that of disease. If you have one group that is highly (and much more) susceptible to certain diseases than other social groups, are they not harming society as a whole? It certainly appears that way, even taking into account things like the chance (re-read that word please) of a hetero couple doing the same (infecting each other, and even possibly others).

What I do feel, especially as a Christian is that while we each have free will, there needs to be an established standard of what rights are acceptable, and which are totally unreasonable. My rights begin and end with the rights of another, and let me tell you clearly - I have heard that over and over from liberals (including my mother, God bless her) that I love, regardless of their beliefs and religious practices. THIS CUTS BOTH WAYS - you simply can't have your cake and eat it too, yet liberals seem quite intent on having just that. I have the right to live in a world where the spreading of disease is frowned upon by people who have concern for the rights of others. Do liberals claim to have the rights of others as their primary interest? Most certainly the answer is YES. Yet ... because I believe something they don't, I am somehow ostracized because of it? I realize life isn't fair, but -
FFS, don't try and make me think you are so unprejudiced, so "fair" in your dealings with "everyone" with regard to "everything" in such a global nature when I know it is pure bull s***! You can't convince me otherwise, I am a witness to 40 years of both parties and at least the Republicans are capable of doing the same things you say they are incapable of! What have liberals shown me? They refuse to give an inch, they are scared Republicans would take a mile. If that is the case, then IMHO, most liberals are nothing more than doormats who can't think on their own and deserve to have a political party that continues to look out for every interest other than what is best for the country.

Think I'm wrong?
PRIME EXAMPLE: You and a bully get into a fight on the schoolyard. Teacher catches both of you in the act (the bully in fighting you, you in the act of defending yourself). What happens? It usually becomes one persons word against the other. Both of you go to see the principal. Both get punished, but wait - you were ONLY DEFENDING YOURSELF!!!!!! That isn't about fairness, it is about what is right and what is wrong. If you can't see it, then the liberals deserve you supporting them, so that - like every other argument they have - you can't prove anything. Everything you say lacks the basics of truth - logic, veracity, honesty, and compassion. If you think those are not the qualities of Republicans, you haven't spoken with one recently and are only going by the brainwashing you've been subject to for so many years.

There are bad apples in EVERY group. Work hard on not being one. Please.

If you are a hypocrite and you know it, click thumbs down.

Answer 7

true, it does nothing to the institution of marriage. basically a marriage is a form you fill out at the court house, give them $25 and they give you a "license". thats it...unless of course you waste a bunch of money you really dont have anyways on a ceremony.

Answer 8

There is no legal reason that I can see other than it might bring the divorce rate down some, which would certainly make straights look silly.

Answer 9

unfortunately this becomes a dollar question and is not related to anything else. It strikes the average person on a personal level. Their fears and personal experiences. That is used to generate a political will. The government simple calculates all the benefits they and coporations will have to pay to come to its conclusion.

Answer 10

I am an ordianed minister.

It absolutely does not affect the insititue of marriage.

Reason: What is GOD'S greatest gift to us?

Answer: FREE WILL

Free Will means exactly what it means free to do whatever you want to do.

For what did GOD say?

Humans are born to sin.

Meaning Gays and Lesbians have an equal right to enter the Gates of Heaven as a straight person who gets divorced.