Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Firstly, let me say that I hate politics in this country because I think people are misguided and fail to account for the constitution within their opinions and reasoning. Secondly, please enjoy! (I originally created this for the state of California, so you will recognize some references regarding that state. However, it applies to any state.)

Gay marriage should be legalized because constitutionally it simply shouldn't matter. The only reason it's an issue is because religious people don't want their "sacred union" of marriage infringed upon by the "evil homosexuals' who might send their religious convictions up into turmoil; that being between a man and a woman. However, if THAT is the case, then the first amendment of the bill of rights is being ignored. Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, essentially.

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


So, either the entire institution of marriage is illegal because it is a law in respect to an establishment of religion, thus it needs to be outlawed. Or it's agreed or settled upon that marriage is not legally related to religion, and in that respect it doesn't need to be outlawed, and should make no difference whether Homos want to call their union a marriage or not.

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. NoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The traditional opinion that marriage must exist only between man and woman is a derivate of religion. It's as simple as that. There is no evidence to the contrary, only proofless assertions being espoused in disguise as "American tradition" or "tradition", when in reality it is the last line of defense for the religious concept of marriage.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That is NOT just my interpretation of the tradition, it is in fact found to be evidenced within the Major religions that recognize "marriage" as an institution of union, and, not surprisingly, their followers and their books all state and allude that homosexuality or same sex marriage is wrong in some way.

"Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Denying same sex marriage would also serve to violate amendment 9 if Amendment 10 is being used as a legal vehicle to deny same sex marriage by Vesting power into the people through popular vote at the state level, being that the preamble is not actually numbered as a constitutional Amendment and technically is not usually recognized as De Jure, then the argument of the pursuit of happiness, etc. I will ignore.

"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. NoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Equal rights is defined under Amendment 9. If Amendment 10 is used as the argument as to why the people can vote out the rights of the minority, then they are in effect using Amendment 10 in violation of Amendment 9. Amendment 9 states that no Amendment can be construed to disparage or deny rights to people that are retained by others. Through combining Amendment 10 and Amendment 9, we have a definition of how equal rights and equal equal protection are being violated in the context of this case. Thus DOMA is illegal, prop. 22 is and prop 8 is in California.

There is nothing wrong with Amendment 10 when used correctly, but if argued as to be a valid basis to negate marriage equality, then this a blatant misuse and it violates and denies the rights of others, again disregarding and transgressing Amendment 9.

In addition to the above play on the hypothetical use of Amendments in this case, the California Judicial system is set up in a way that the popular opinion and vote may not even matter.

In essence, our only hope IS the Fiduciary obligations of the Supreme Court. The California Constitution is #ed and so is its judicial system. It has taken away all power from the people.

The California Constitution should be absolutely repealed and abolished and restored with the Supreme Jurisdiction of this land, which is found in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Article III:

Section. 1."The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court..."


This court follows the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, not the California Constitution, and has power to over-ride state ratified constitutions.

Section. 2."The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;... between a State, or the Citizens thereof..."

Thus it is absolutely constitutional that the Supreme Court has authority over this matter.

Article IV:

Section. 2."The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States..."


From here, it MUST be a national decision. There can not be one state where privileges and immunities are not parallel with those of another state. Ergo, if same sex marriage is legalized in a state, either all states must legalize, or it must be struck down by the Supreme Court. Since it has been proven to be a constitutional right, then the final decision will be a National Liberation on same sex marriage and a proliferation of its use.

Lastly, remember, same sex marriage does not mean that you are, or have to be a homosexual. Marriage will be available to ANYONE (age restrictions) under any basis. Enjoy America.
edit on 11-8-2014 by PansophicalSynthesis because: small paranthetical addition




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Ugh, love shouldn't be an issue. People should be able to marry who they want free from ridicule. Personally I think the gov should quit telling people what is acceptable.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Love isn't the issue. The government isn't creating laws that say people cannot love each other. Marriage IS the issue.

As for the government telling people what is and is not acceptable. I have a plethora of thorough legal documents regarding that, including the impositions emplaced on us by the FCC. Mainly, it's a failure of the Federal Government to recognize our constitutional rights, and a psychological incompetency. I'll create a thread for that later.
edit on 11-8-2014 by PansophicalSynthesis because: spelling!



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Considering a legal government marriage license is basically a government contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household, it's in no way religious.

Considering the legal government marriage license came about to prevent interracial marriage, it's in no way religious.

Considering states being given right to determine who could and could not get married, is based purely on discrimination ---- when communities chose who and who they didn't want living amongst them. I'd say the Federal Housing Act should nullify that right.

So, yeah, I agree with all the judges who say marriage is a constitutional right to any of age consenting couple.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
S&F man. I agree 100%. I've been saying this for a while. Ever since the religious let government take over the responsibility of marriage and provide benefits and registration for marriage, they ceded any right to determine who can and cannot be married.

Even the argument of "traditional marriage" is flawed. Christians didn't invent marriage. People have been getting married across the world for thousands of years before Christianity was a thing. There is no such thing as "traditional marriage" just Christians trying to impose their will through religion on a minority which is against the spirit of the Constitution.

Good job OP.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I always figured it was because the government doesn't want to piss off the church by forcing their hand to do something against their religion.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The things you state are true, and I am aware of them. I am talking about the traditional "idea" of marriage, held by the majority of the people in some of these states that is used to prevent same gender marriage, that is thought of between a man and a woman, that is contrived because of religion.

Secondly, can you please cite your proof for legal marriage as a means to prevent inter-racial marriage in a form other than an opinion.

As I mentioned in my opening sentence; I am not a fan of having political discussions that revolve around opinions and not legalities and de jure litigation. I consider the constitution to be supreme.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fargoth
I always figured it was because the government doesn't want to piss off the church by forcing their hand to do something against their religion.


State recognition of marriage has no bearing whatsoever on the purely optional religious component. Churches as private organizations are free to do whatever the wish including marry whom they wish. Some churches will choose to marry homosexual couples others will not. But it should be noted that while a church may legally choose not to marry those couples, it does not make them immune to public opinion or recourse.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: KeliOnyx

I personally dont give sh*t either way. But I feel as long as two people love each other a piece of paper means nothing. Me and my woman are not and will not be married, we dont need a legal agreement to remind us of who we are and what we have.
edit on 11-8-2014 by Fargoth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Honoring your request for fact.

I may or may not have it 100% correct. I've had the marriage license discussion many times. Wish I'd saved references, but I didn't.

However, here is what Religious Tolerance says. Great site BTW.



Part 1: Conflict over inter-racial marriage in the U.S. Anti-miscegenation laws. The Supreme Court ruling of 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

Laws forbidding inter-racial marriage: US anti-miscegenation laws restricting marriages on the basis of race were once enforced in most states. Sometimes, they were referred to as miscegenation laws. The word comes from Latin: "miscere" (to mix) and "genus" (kind). www.religioustolerance.org...




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Considering the legal government marriage license came about to prevent interracial marriage, it's in no way religious.


I see. I'm not familiar with what you linked, but I'm also not a historian. Given that the site you cite is true, I think your sentence would have been better constructed to be true if it was represented as the following:

"Considering the anti-miscegenation laws came about to prevent interracial marriage, it's in no way religious." Assuming "it's" is referring to the anti-miscegenation laws.

The legal marriage license, although subject temporarily to the anti-miscegenation laws at a time in our history, did not come about to prevent interracial marriage. Instead, the anti-miscegenation laws did. Though they affected the legal marriage license, they were not what brought it about. The legal marriage license preceded the anti-miscegenation laws.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

I consider the constitution a 200 year old framework that needs regular updating.

However, it's your thread and probably too serious for me to continue.

I hope you get some good intelligent serious debaters. Later




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   


So, either the entire institution of marriage is illegal because it is a law in respect to an establishment of religion, thus it needs to be outlawed. Or it's agreed or settled upon that marriage is not legally related to religion, and in that respect it doesn't need to be outlawed, and should make no difference whether Homos want to call their union a marriage or not.
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

It's beyond debate that no particular religion defines, owns or otherwise controls the word marriage, how a relationship between two adults is conducted.

It's hotly debated if Religions have superior ideas that result in happier, healthier more productive people. I say look to Gaza and you will see the answer right in front of you. All sorts of gross violations of humanity going on there under the watchful eye of God(s). Dump that baggage.

edit on 12-8-2014 by InverseLookingGlass because: spelling



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
And you didn't even mention the 14th Amendment, which is my "go-to" on gay marriage.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


As regards this subject, no state shall make or enforce any law that denies the ANY PERSON equal protection of the laws.

If a state has marriage laws and contracts, they should apply equally to ALL citizens of that state. Doing otherwise violates the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
When you get married the government takes complete control of both your assets and your relationship. This is a fact. If you want a divorce, the government has to okay it, and occasionally the government will send you to counseling in order to "save" the marriage - even against your wishes. The government also owns your assets, your kids etc. and will decide what is in ITS best interested with regard to distribution of them. An for the effort the government takes a nice cut money.

A "license" is PERMISSION to use the term, and contract of marriage which is owned by the government. Love has nothing to do with it.

So I ask, why does anyone want the government involved in their relationship?

Why does anyone believe their "love" is validated by the government taking control of their "love" and their assets?

The tired excuse of "visiting ill lovers" is just total B&$%#$IT. You can sign a contract that takes care of everything the marriage contract does without having the government involved. You can have a wedding and children and beat each other senseless if your like and the government isn't included in the picture. So why do people demand the government get involved in affairs of the heart? Is the government God or something? No, it replaced the god of the church and is now the authority on love.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Marriage is a contract between two people.

The state/government has no business getting involved in anything two people decide upon.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Marriage is a contract between two people.

The state/government has no business getting involved in anything two people decide upon.


So who's willing to dissolve their legal government marriage and the privileges that come with it?

I especially have my doubts those of the anti-gay marriage group are willing to do this for their cause.

Many have no qualms at denying the rights of others, but not so much when it comes to them giving up that same right.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

So who's willing to dissolve their legal government marriage and the privileges that come with it?


That's part of the problem, the whole carrot and stick.


I especially have my doubts those of the anti-gay marriage group are willing to do this for their cause.


Who cares? Really, who cares what they think.


Many have no qualms at denying the rights of others, but not so much when it comes to them giving up that same right.


I could say the same about any number of progressive issues.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Marriage is not a right.

The Govt has no business in regulating Marriage. Marriage is a Religious act.

The only reason the Govt is involved, is to collect fees associated with it, and to enact tax laws that encompass the financial life of people that wed.

Remove the Govt from this, remove the taxes and this problem solves itself.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: crankyoldman
If you want a divorce, the government has to okay it


If you want to get out of ANY legal contract, the government will be involved. A married couple CAN separate and never see each other again, if they wish. They can "divorce" or "marry" (in quotes to denote not legally) anytime they want.



So I ask, why does anyone want the government involved in their relationship?


It's a good question, but not really relevant, IMO. This is about those who DO wish to enter into the legal contract, for whatever reason.



Why does anyone believe their "love" is validated by the government taking control of their "love" and their assets?


I don't believe anyone does. The government does not control love. I think your post is loaded with hyperbole.



The tired excuse of "visiting ill lovers" is just total B&$%#$IT. You can sign a contract that takes care of everything the marriage contract does without having the government involved.


If you sign a private contract, it can possibly be enforced through the court system. But if a couple signs a contract without government involvement, and the family decides to fight it, the family will probably win. And who wants to go through a lengthy court case when your partner is dying in a hospital? By the time you finish, even if you win, your partner is dead and you didn't get to say goodbye or enforce any of his wishes.

Source



These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.




You can have a wedding and children and beat each other senseless if your like and the government isn't included in the picture.


Beating each other is against the law, regardless whether you're married or not. But you're right, you can "marry" and have kids. But if you're gay, you'd have to adopt and agencies rarely adopt to single men.



So why do people demand the government get involved in affairs of the heart? Is the government God or something? No, it replaced the god of the church and is now the authority on love.


Why do people sky-dive? Why do people like country music? Why do people believe in God? Because they do. That's really neither here nor there.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join