"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof... etc. etc."
So, if Fundamentalists want to argue that Marriage is defined as one woman + one man in the Bible (which is a stretch of interpretation)... then that makes marriage a religious affair and thus untouchable by federal law as per the 1st Amendment.
Agree?
And how could the law validate the marriage of one religion and invalidate the marriage of another?
(That would mean that all hand-fastings are null and void as well as the hetero marriages performed in religions which also perform gay marriages and refuse to distinguish between them).
And before you say "Reynolds V. United States", that was about Polygamy (and only lead to the conclusion that you can't break a federal law that already exists and say it was your religious right.)
2007-09-02 16:07:43 · 9 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
What is the reason people are against gay marriage? The majority of them claim it's against their religious beliefs. So, then to enact a law excluding a group of people based on the religious beliefs of others would indeed be a violation of the First Amendment.
As for the rationale of marriage should be between two people who can procreate, what about all those couples who can't have children for whatever reason, be it infertility or age? Should we not allow them to marry also?
2007-09-02 16:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by OPad 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm sorry there is nothing in the first amendment to protect gay marriage !!! Marriage in the U.S. is not a religious event but a legal matter. State licenses are required for a marriage. Papers must be filed at the courthouse. It's a legal matter of the individual states. There are other amendments that might apply but not the first !! Marriage is not at the current time a matter for the congress anyway. Nor will it be anytime in the near future.
2007-09-02 16:27:27 · answer #2 · answered by old-bald-one 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wearing mixed fibres is wrong in the old testament but all that changed in the new testament. It might be natural for some species but it is not for human beings because a man and man can't reproduce and a woman and woman can't reproduce. Divorce is wrong too but there are certain cases in which there is abuse so divorce is necessary. Truth is relative. If you don't have a standard, it can keep changing. So that's why homosexuality was once considered wrong but now it isn't. People just go with the culture without thinking on their own and not letting the culture take them in. Christians might be taken in by the Bible but those who arent' are being taken in by the culture and they aren't even realizing it.
2016-05-19 22:46:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, since conservatives have never tried to make a Federal Law, making gay marriage illegal.
Whats the question about ?
Every State in the United States, has passed laws making Gay Marriage illegal.
That's, right, all 50 states, made gay marriage illegal.
Even the Liberal states made gay marriage illegal.
The people or legislature of no state, have ever made gay marriage legal.
Not even in the liberal states.
Now, if the liberal states, have made gay marriage illegal along with the conservative states.
And the liberal states have failed to make gay marriage legal, along with the conservative states.
Why do you try and classify it as a liberal- conservative issue ?
The only states that currently allow gay marriage, do so, because their State Courts, over turned laws that the citizens and legislature passed making gay marriage illegal.
So, explain why all those " Blue " states, banned gay marriage ?
And explain why none of them, are making gay marriage legal ?
2007-09-02 16:42:38 · answer #4 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off...........I am on your side. The amendment you quote though is .......what religion are you subscribing to?
See, no religion has stepped up yet for same sex marriage. I am sorry, but ALL religions believe marriage is man and woman.
Your argument should stay in the realm of separation of church and state, as well as , pursuing a church to advocate your marriage is sanctified.
I just lost my brother-in-law New Years this year. My advice seems confused, but this is the direction he was working on.
Good Luck, Sweetie!
2007-09-02 16:41:47 · answer #5 · answered by MOI 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No; the Constitution does not give government the right to redefine long-term accepted legal definitions without an amendment. For homosexual marriage privileges, an amendment must be passed to allow such a severe change in common/written law.
2007-09-02 17:08:26 · answer #6 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not saying that it is defined as between a man and a woman as in the bible. They are saying it is defined that way. One can not marry a goat or a horse, either. They think that marriage should be between two people who are able to reproduce, not just have sex. While I will admit that gay people do fall in love just as much as a heterosexual couple, there are some who fall in love with their sheep. Should we allow people to marry other animals? I know I am playing devils advocate. I do think it is a shame that gay people can not go threw the same misery that the heterosexual community has to go threw myself. =)
2007-09-02 16:21:21 · answer #7 · answered by Prof. Dave 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YES! I totally agree!
It would be in violation of the first amendment!
2007-09-02 16:16:37 · answer #8 · answered by Megan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
of course it isn't even though its for a moral purpose. you could definatly outlaw gay marriage in legal terms. thus cutting out all marital benifits to gays
2007-09-02 16:27:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋