Separation of Church & State

[ecmst12]

The fact that people keep voting to outlaw gay marriage is EXACTLY why it needs to be legislated into existence, NOT voted. The tyrrany of the majority is alive and well in america. I have yet to hear a SINGLE solid rational reason why gay marriage should not be legal. Only emotional or religious arguments, which are certainly nothing to base the law on.

 

[TigerD]

The problem is cross-definition of terms. Marriage is a sacrament and beyond the state's capability to license. However, "marriage" as the state sees it is actually a partnership with defined benefits and responsibilities.

The state needs to change its terminology to better reflect the actual partnership being created.

DC

 

[justalayman]

I have yet to hear a SINGLE solid rational reason why gay marriage should not be legal

because apparently the majority of the populace doesn't believe it should be. Since we live in a quasi-democracy, I believe majority rule is proper.

How can you justify enacting a law that is in contrast to the majority vote? Isn't that itself in contrast to the principles of our constitution?

 

[ecmst12]

Because our inalienable rights should not be put up for a vote. When women were given the right to vote, do you think the majority of men in the country supported that right at the time? How about black people? Historically speaking, tolerance comes AFTER the law recognizes a group as equal, not before.

 

[justalayman]

=ecmst12;2656517]Because our inalienable rights should not be put up for a vote. When women were given the right to vote, do you think the majority of men in the country supported that right at the time? How about black people? Historically speaking, tolerance comes AFTER the law recognizes a group as equal, not before.

Have any of the states laws been challenged on a constitutional basis? If not, why not? If so, where did it go?

as soon as you get that pushed through, I'm shooting for having the right to have 27 wives under the same argument.


and just so you do not think I think anybody is horrible for wanting same sex marriage; I am neither for it nor against it. I don't really care. Now, I will admit I don't understand the whole gay thing but that is a different discussion altogether.

 

[mistoffolees]

The problem is cross-definition of terms. Marriage is a sacrament and beyond the state's capability to license. However, "marriage" as the state sees it is actually a partnership with defined benefits and responsibilities.

The state needs to change its terminology to better reflect the actual partnership being created.

DC

Which is why I suggested that strategically, the gay community would have been better off to try for domestic partnerships with all the same rights as marriage - but without calling it marriage. That would gain them most of what they want and swing at least SOME number of people to their side. Then, sometime in the future when domestic partnership rights are firmly entrenched, if people start calling it marriage ("it's the same thing in all but name, anyway"), there would be less opposition.

because apparently the majority of the populace doesn't believe it should be. Since we live in a quasi-democracy, I believe majority rule is proper.

How can you justify enacting a law that is in contrast to the majority vote? Isn't that itself in contrast to the principles of our constitution?

Actually, no. The Constitution very clearly states that some rights are NOT subject to the whims of the electorate. It is probably best summed up in the Declaration of Independence - which formed the basis for the founding fathers' thoughts in writing the Constitution. "We are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights". Clearly, there was a belief that some rights are so fundamental that no legitimate government can take them away.

 

[justalayman]

Actually, no. The Constitution very clearly states that some rights are NOT subject to the whims of the electorate. It is probably best summed up in the Declaration of Independence - which formed the basis for the founding fathers' thoughts in writing the Constitution. "We are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights". Clearly, there was a belief that some rights are so fundamental that no legitimate government can take them away.

and the Declaration is law where?

 

[mistoffolees]

and the Declaration is law where?

As I said, it's not. It is an example of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution. The bill of rights enumerates the same sentiments, albeit in a different form.

The point is that our system is based on the principle that individuals have certain rights that are inalienable. The fact that a majority of people feel differently does not eliminate someone's rights.

 

[BOR]

Because our inalienable rights should not be put up for a vote. When women were given the right to vote, do you think the majority of men in the country supported that right at the time? How about black people? Historically speaking, tolerance comes AFTER the law recognizes a group as equal, not before.

Jefferson used the word inalienable in his drafts also, although the Declaration reads unalienable. Although the principal author, it was toned down by Congress and the history is, John Adams, who was also on the 5 member drafting committee, wrote unalineable when he presented his copy to the Continental Congress.

Some states permitted women to vote before the 19th AM.

 

[BOR]

As I said, it's not. It is an example of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution. The bill of rights enumerates the same sentiments, albeit in a different form.

The Preamble to the BoR clearly indicates the want for a restrictive and limited federal government, not the Giant it is today.

Part of the Declaration though is SC case law, we have a right to the "pursuit of happiness" as one of the LIBERTIES the 14th AM protects. However, that is not to mean what makes us happy should always be Constitutionally protected.

 

[ecmst12]

But there should be a compelling state interest being protected before a right is limited or restricted. This is what I have yet to see being proven. The state has no interest in upholding a standard of marriage based on religion; the same type of stable family unit can be created from a same sex union as from an opposite sex union and a stable family union (of any type) is in the state's interest to promote. We don't require straight couples to hold marriage in any particular esteem (read any of the family law forums lately?) and there's no evidence that the divorce rate will be significantly affected at all (since we're talking about less then 10% of the population). All it means is that more couples will have access to tax benefits, rights of succession, equal rights in parenting of children, and all the other legal perks that marriage conveys. It means that the LAW recognizes that there is no material difference between a same sex couple and an opposite sex couple, regardless of whether all of the citizens (or even most of them) have figured that out yet.

 

[mistoffolees]

But there should be a compelling state interest being protected before a right is limited or restricted.

That is not true. Under the principle that there are certain HUMAN rights that stem simply from the fact of being human (or the fact that they were granted by the Creator in some early documents), the rights exist without regard to whether they're good for the government.

In fact, the Constitution specifically limits the government's ability to limit some rights.

 

[ecmst12]

Well there are a lot of things that fall under "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that are limited by the law for good reasons. Even anti-drug laws, which many would say citizens should have the right to harm themselves if they want to, have an argument for there being a state interest in promoting the health and mental clarity of the population. Not everyone will agree that the state's interest is sufficent to justify limiting the rights, but the argument is there, and the courts (for the time being anyway) support it. You don't have the right to steal from your neighbor even though his x-box might make you happy. You don't have the right (bringing it back to family law) to refuse to support your children just because you would rather spend the money elsewhere. Every law in existence is there to limit your liberties, under the premise that the law creates a civilized society which everyone benefits from. Living in the society, you agree to having some freedoms restricted in exchange for the protection the law can offer you. I don't have a problem with the existence of laws, I'm not one of those crazy militia types like the whackos on CSI last week

However the other premise that this country was founded on is that all human beings were created EQUAL. And there is absolutely no compelling reason that SOME people should be allowed to marry the person of their choosing, the person who they love and wish to build a life/family with, but others can't. I can see a state interest in not allowing poligamy; but like I said, no material difference between 2-person marriages between same sex or opposite sex couple. If we are all equal, then it's clear marriage is one of those rights that needs to be available to everyone.

 

[tranquility]

the same type of stable family unit can be created from a same sex union as from an opposite sex union and a stable family union (of any type) is in the state's interest to promote

You determined this how?

I know, you must have read it in the CA case. Well, if a single judge has determined one theory to be true, it must be true.

By the way, what is the "right" we are talking about? Please write it out.

 

[cbg]

We've had same sex marriage here in MA for several years now.

Hasn't caused any great disasters that I've noticed.