Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, July 19, 2010 21:02
VIEWED: 5559
PAGE 2 of 7
If gays can't marry each other they will go on marrying other people under some sort of ruse of "legitimacy" which makes for miserable relationships. Better for everyone if gays marry each other.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you KPO. That spells it out for me exactly. If a church decides it wants to carry out same-sex marriages, what the hell is the problem?
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm all for allowing individual churches/faiths freedom to discriminate, based on their religious convictions. But some churches are willing to perform gay marriage, and many gays desire to be married... why should the government intervene and stop them? Interested to hear 'libertarian' views on this.
You know. Besides the usual: bigotry.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If gays can't marry each other they will go on marrying other people under some sort of ruse of "legitimacy" which makes for miserable relationships. Better for everyone if gays marry each other.
Also known as marriage, period.
Anyway, good for them. Laws shouldn't create double standards. A law should be applicable to everyone. It would also be nice if it were agreed upon by everyone, in the sense of rule of law is supposed to be a social contract between people. The question, of course, is whether the contract is workable, if it makes illegal most actions that would cause harm to a person or their property, and doesn't intervene when a person's actions causes harm to no one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't care if gays marry other gays; its preferable to gays marrying straights.
We take this issue for granted. Amidst the furor over people being denied rights and dignity, or gays destroying western civilization, its easy to forget how novel this is all is. Gay marriage wasn't seriously up for discussion, let alone disagreement, a generation ago. Now its one of our great preoccupations. That is encouraging. And also, annoying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Someone wanted a Libertarian opinion. This is mine.
I think the entire debate over civil unions vs. marriage and who can have it is rooted, unfortunately, in a lingering lack of separation between church and state. Government ought not to have anything to do with marriage at all. It certainly should not be permitted to define or limit it. The idea that special benefits accrue to people paired according to the preferences of the state is abhorrent to me. Not only is the government definition of marriage as 'man + woman' unfair, but so too is its limitation of marriage at all. What if three people desire to be married? Six? Twelve? A grab bag of numbers and sexes and orientations? If a bisexual woman wants to marry two gay men, a straight man, and a bisexual man, so what? The government has decided to reward X vs Y marital arrangements, and I've never found a reason for it that wasn't rooted in religious morality and values.
So, let me tell you the flip side of this coin, and how it bothers me.
This ruling will establish the precedent that the Feds can't tell the states what marriage is. Thus the Feds will not be able to rule that marriage is an equal right, allowed for any group of adults who want it. And so, individual states and state clusters will continue to discriminate, making a long road-trip or short airplane jaunt a necessity for any unpopular group who wants to get married. This is very much a double-edged sword, and has the potential to bite on the backswing.
Only by removing all government definition of marriage will marriage ever be truly free for those that want it. As long as the government regulates people's commitments to one another, those commitments will always be dictated by government preference.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Nix, a civil union covers this.
Separate but equal, in other words.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike said it for me. Also; how many states allow civil unions? All of them? The state-by-state thing is absurd, given what it actually means, which is that those rich enough to travel are the only ones who could get married. It goes directly against equal CIVIL RIGHTS for all, and the "state" shouldn't be involved anyway.
What happened to my question?
“Why are Conservatives/RWAs all FOR so-called “individual freedom” and less government intrusion, except when they want the church to use the government impose on the our liberties?”
Anyone against gay marriage (or abortion for that matter) got an answer for that, since the opposite was hurled at liberals? That's kind of the crux of it for me where both are concerned (not to mention prayer in school, etc.). If you truly believe in personal freedom, how do you rationalize the state's involvement in religious questions?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm all for allowing individual churches/faiths freedom to discriminate, based on their religious convictions. But some churches are willing to perform gay marriage, and many gays desire to be married... why should the government intervene and stop them? Interested to hear 'libertarian' views on this.
Heh, we actually agree on something.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population?
That's what the southern States said about the Slaves in the 1860's wasn't it?
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Government ought not to have anything to do with marriage at all.
Do you think that a non-American citizen should have no special right to become an American citizen if they marry one, so that married couple must live apart if the State decides it?
Quote:
Only by removing all government definition of marriage will marriage ever be truly free for those that want it. As long as the government regulates people's commitments to one another, those commitments will always be dictated by government preference.
Down with contracts then. But how is one, in that case, to ensure a company keeps it's commitment to you after it got your money?
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME