Neocons... why is ANYONE else's marriage any of your business?

Question

Tell me how, in this country where individual freedoms are supposed to be our most cherished asset, you have any right to stick your nose into someone else's marriage.

Extra points to anyone who can find a place in the Constitution where the government is authorized to do this.

Leogirl: You did not answer the question.

Gary W: People hide behind Amendment 10 all the time. It's a lame argument. Basically, they're saying anything not listed specifically in the Constitution is something the state can legislate. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to tell me what time I have to take a shower... does that mean the state can do it?

Everyone: I said nothing about gay marriage. Please notice that.

I was also referring to extramarital affairs and whether or not we have the legal right to interrogate a United States President about his affairs.

Ben: MY rights are not being infringed upon. I am straight; I can, therefore, marry the person I love. But being American is supposed to be about celebrating individual rights, not taking them away. You propose an amendment that forbids some American citizens from marrying the person they love.

Why is that right?

Answer 1

The government, federal or state, has no right to tell people who they can or can't marry. And nowhere is it in the Constitution about marriage. Therefore, it is reserved to the people. According to the Ninth Amendment anyway. The government has no right to define what marriage is. If they can tell two homosexual couples that they cannot get married because the state recognizes marriage between a man and woman, why stop there. Tell interracial couples that they can't get married, because they are not the same race. The state recognizes marriage between two couples of the same race of the opposite sex. Tell certain races they can't get married because the state recognizes marriage between one white male and one white female. The government has no business defining marriage or telling certain people who they can or can't marry.

Answer 2

Good question. Marriage is not the gvmt's job. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness and the right to free association is our first amendment right. Our marriage, with is a special and specific association, is our business, our job to define. Whether we choose to live together with out a formal marriage, married by the pope, promise ourselves to each other nakid in the woods to someone of the same or opposite sex, these are OUR associations that should be treated equally by the gvmt.

Gvmt programs and tax structure should not give any preference of special benefit to associations that it deems 'better' than others. Social Security should be privatized so individuals get to have their own account so they can give their money to their spouse or partner when they die. The death tax needs to be eliminated so everyone has the same and equal treatment to pass their money to whom they choose. The income tax needs to be replaced with the fair or flat tax so gvmt can't give some the benefit of income averaging.

And why do you place this issue solely on "Neo-Cons"? Did they sign the defense of marriage act? I don't think so....

Answer 3

I'm in favor of gay marriage (I'd better be, since I'm gay), but the marriage debate isn't about whether gay people can stand up in a church and declare themselves married under god; we can already do that. It's about whether the government should recognize our commitments as a special class of relationship and reward members for it.

Right now the government incentivizes straight people to get married (with tax breaks, social security and pension inheritance, etc, etc) because it believes straight marriages are beneficial to society. And of course the government has the right to pass laws that will increase the public good. One thing gay marriage advocates should be working on is demonstrating that society is better served by gay people in long-term, committed relationships than by single gay people. Until it can be shown that there is a public interest in *promoting* gay marriages, the government will continue to argue that the 14th amendment (Equal Protection) does not apply.

If you truly believe marriage is none of the government's business then you should be calling for an end to civil marriage for straight people, not government recognition of gay marriage.

Answer 4

Lemme put it in the words of someone for whom I have great respect.

"My own business always bores me to death - I prefer other people's!"

That is why everyone is always in everyone else's business!

But seriously, you know that people are opinionated and want to tell you how to live your life; and when you are a politician, it is your duty to be opinionated and represent your constituency (at least in theory). so naturally, everyone wants to be heard...just so they can get reelected. And if what they are saying conforms with their own beliefs, well, then they are even more passionate about it! Also, for most people it is fun telling everyone else that their way is the only way especially when you have the power to enforce these ideas. So, to answer your question...neocons get into everyone's business just cos they can!

As far as marriages go...well, nobody wants to see same sex marriage legalized or allow for a high divorce rate, or let anyone say that marriage is not connected with god, especially neocons. (cos they usually have a highly religious constituency).

Oh, and as far as the Constitution goes...just went through the whole thing and the first ten amendments and couldn't even find the word marriage in it...but then again, the US Constitution is written broadly enough for any good lawyer (which is what most of the politicians are) to interpret it in any way he/she darn well pleases, especially because it is the state's responsibility to define marriage as far as I know!

Answer 5

I am about to be married, and I have to tell you: I really don't feel that the love between my fiance' and I is true and genuine because somewhere out there two other consenting adults love one another and have pleged to honor one another until death.

I hate that I have to point out my sarcasm, but the previous paragraph is dripping with it.

We in Washington have a petition going around that will require procreation within 3 years of marriage and disallow all marriages that don't involve procreative ability (eg. elderly people). The only reason we don't have same sex marriage in Washington, according to our state supreme court, is that same sex unions can't produce children. Hopefully, the measure will be passed, immediately found unconstitutional, and we can finally end this bigoted nonsense in my great state.

Answer 6

Marriage is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, because marriage laws are determined by the states.:) It's amazing how some conservatives claim that they want the government out of their lives, yet they still want it to impose their concept of morality. If that isn't government interference, I don't know what is!

EDIT: I'm sorry. I didn't fully understand the message behind your question. I don't think what people do in their private lives is anyone's business. I really wish that the Monica Lewinsky thing had never come out, not only because it was no one's business but Bill's, Hillary's, and Chelsea's, but also because the last thing we needed was a mental picture of Monica going down on Bill or Bill sticking his cigar in an unmentionable area.

Answer 7

In order to educate you we must first start with understanding what marriage is. You see, before civilization began there were no rules. People could live anyway they chose. They could have been a man and a woman, three women and six men, only men with men and women with women any combination you want.

But something happened and this something was universal. It was discovered that the best combination for society was to have one man with one woman monogamously committed to each other. The man was responsible for the woman's well being, the woman was responsible for the man's well being. All of the resulting children were the offspring of the union of these two exclusively and were the responsibility of these two.

Since this proved to be the best arrangement it was singled out and made the ideal. It was declared the proven best and blessed by society, or the government, or the church or whomever was the moral authority. Society now had an Ideal.

America and for thousands of years most every other civilized society accepted this as the ideal standard.

Along come homosexuals. They decide that they want to be married, too. Now one must bear in mind that they are already free to live together however they choose. In fact many heterosexual people live together without being married. One person can live with and be lovers with any combination they wish. But that is not the ideal standard.

There can only be one ideal standard. Anything else is something less. This is why who is permitted to be married and how many times one can marry is society's business. By desiring to be married you are seeking society's blessing or endorcement. Society only can endorse the ideal.

Have your civil unions if you feel you need to. I believe people should be able to have contracts or legal agreements allowing them to take resonsibility for each other or however many people as they desire. But you must meet the standard to be considered the ideal.

Despite all the retoric, the absolute best arrangement is still one man committed to one woman responsible for their own offspring. If they meet this standard and vow to stay that way, they meet the ideal standard and are entitled to the blessing of society. Failure of people to live up to the standard does not change the fact that it is the ideal standard.

By the way, this is not just the realm of the neo-cons it is the realm of society as a whole. There are plenty of old school conservatives, liberals and anything else you might imagine that believe in the ideal standard for marriage.

Answer 8

nobody has any business in anybody else's marriage. I don't believe that marriage is listed at all in the constitution. get rid of all marriage if you don't like it. And have your religious ceremonies without the government involvement. In fact, if you leave property rights out of it, you would have a lot less divorce.

Answer 9

Gays and Lesbians have the same right as the rest of us do:

WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE GENDER!

A gay man may marry a woman.
Just as a straight man may marry a woman.

A lesbian woman may marry a man.
Just as a straight woman may marry a man.

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!

Answer 10

It isn't. Unless of course it's Bill and Hell Clinton. Then we have a right to protest. If people want our vote, they have to put their personal lives out to the public, especially in politics. If they want to be elected, to run OUR government, we the people have a damn right to know what the hell they're doing and what they are after. That means every aspect of their personal lives. The same goes for any public figure, actors, Liberals and Republicans.