Gay marriage question. serious answers only please.?

Question

The defintion of discrimination is, denying a group the same rights or benifits as all the other groups simply because they are of that group. So why is not allowing gays to legally marry (out side of a church, because they can make their own rules) not discrimination?

Two women or two men entering a marriage is no going to lead to people marring their dog. BECAUSE animals can't enter into a contract. so all you can rest easy. OK

also up untill the 1970's in some southern states it was illegal for people of diferent races to get married

dude there is nothing in the constitution that says i can wear a pokadot suit down the streat singing "johnny be good" either. but i can. or put creamer in my coffie. so just its not specifialy stated in the constiution doesn't mean it no legal.

antmyfault. i was looking for a legal answer not moral one. Thats why i tried to seperate between religion and the state, i wasn't here to debate the right or wrong of being a homosexual. but since you took the time to write such a long answer i figured the least i could do was read it. thank you for answering. me. you clearly feel strongly about this subject.

Answer 1

I'm just going to give you a point-blank direct answer to your question. There is nothing in the US constitution prohibiting all discrimination. Only discrimination that falls under one of the distinct clauses of the 14th amendment (due process or equal protection) is banned. The government is free to discriminate against groups of people as long as they do not violate one of these two clauses (or any anti-discrimination clauses in state constitutions).

Answer 2

The prohibition on same-sex marriage is not necessarily discrimination. It's a rational, utilitarian calculation of State interest.

There is a major distinction between rights and benefits. Privacy laws require that only immediate family members have access to a patient's room, for example. They have the right to be with their family member.

That right comes from the relationship between the two--they're family, created and connected by human procreation. As such, spouses, who are not related per se, are granted the same right because of their connection via procreation.

A right which is artificially granted is, in this context, a benefit. An incentive to facilitate what the State is truly interested in, replenishing the population ("survival of the State").

The State has a legitimate interest in providing incentives to keep procreating (which is, economically, a waste of time and counterproductive).

Multiple federal courts have determined, as the Washington state Supreme Court held, "The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

Answer 3

Discrimination is a slippery slope. Think of it in terms of a judicial scale. Society needs to have balance. If there are differing opinions, then the loser will feel discriminated against. We, as a society, must "weigh" benefits and downsides of each argument to develop the laws in which we live by. Race, Gender, Orientation, and Beliefs all have "weight". This is why it is so important the majority rules. Government does not tell us what is right and wrong, we tell the government what needs to be fixed. Discrimination based on Race and Gender has proven to be socially distasteful by the majority. Whether you or I believe discrimination based on orientation or belief system is wrong is irrelevant. The majority must agree.

Answer 4

Because of the definition as it now exists for "marriage". It's between a man and a woman as it now stands. This is why polygamy is illegal, also, because that constitutes more than just a man and a woman. And marriage between a person and an animal. The definition needs to be changed to accommodate anyone else.

Additional: You asked why it's not considered discrimination, and it's technically because of the definition of marriage. Not being allowed to marry because of race was discrimination because it was based on race and not on the definition of marriage as set down. That is the difference between those two. As I stated, in order to get past this then the definition of marriage needs to be changed, just as the definition of what constitutes a family was changed in order to accommodate the changes in family groupings.

And since there are marriages of animals to animals, then the law can be changed to accommodate people marrying animals. Wise up. Animals are left dying people's estates all of the time, so there is precedent for them to enter into legally binding contracts.

Why are you asking questions if you believe yourself to already know the answers?

Answer 5

About the only thing I can see not being enjoyed by a gay couple is health insurance benefits from one partner being employed and covering the other partner. Property in wills is already covered as is death wishes. Relatives can fight that will but so can a gay partner. Seems to come down to health insurance. Health insurance will become exorbitantly high if it is allowed as even many gays will tell you, the lifestyle is dangerous. Insurance companies do not want to cover dangerous behavior since they are there to make and take that being the bottom line.

Personally I don't care what you do if it does not affect me. If health insurance costs go up because gay marriage is allowed then it will affect me.

Answer 6

It is discrimination. In fact, it is gender-based discrimination, because the restrictions are based (according to the text of the law) solely on the gender of the potential spouse.

However, gender based discrimination is allowed under certain circumstances. The outstanding question is whether the Supreme Court will recognize that argument if it ever gets that far.

Answer 7

As far as I'm concerned it is discrimination.

What's next, two people of different races can't get married because if they have kids, the kids may be teased in school?

Blonde women can't get married because the general opinion of blondes is that they're not very intelligent and therefore should not make a decision that big?

A blind man and blind woman can't marry because something may happen that would require sight to resolve?

Same for a deaf couple?

Laws can be changed, and should. If two people are in love, no matter their genders, they should be allowed the same opportunities as any other two people.

Until the government decides to ban divorce, they should not be able to ban weddings. (that goes for straight, gay, polyamorous, black, white, blind, sighted, deaf, interracial, etc..."

Answer 8

unfortunately it is not considered discrimination in states where/when there are no laws allowing gay marriage. if it is in a state where gay marriage is legal, denial of marriage rights/benefits can be discrimination. it sucks, but it is the way the law is at the moment.

i agree with the above poster, everyone should have the same legal right to be miserable reguardless of sexual orientation.

Answer 9

Problem is religious groups donate sht loads of money to politicians to buy their vote and religious politicians like Bush put their beliefs before everyone else. They think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If you prevent religious groups and religious freaks from giving money to politicians then Gay marriage would be allowed and they would be given equal rights and benefits.

Answer 10

Not allowing geys (or anyone else) to legally marry if they are totally consent to it IS a discrimination. Clear discrimination. There is NOTHING that can successfully argue that ban on gey marriage is not a discrimination. We are not in a Stone Age.