It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the State's compelling interest in banning gay marriage?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Liberal activist judges subvert the will of the people by "legislating from the bench".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now THERE is some rightwing speak!
Judges are SUPPOSED to interpret the Law. Their JOB is to rule on the constitutionality of Laws, particularly ill concieved referendums.
"Activist Judge" is simply propaganda for a ruling you don't like.
As for the Second Amendment, I stated my take on it, but you just ignored the consistency of my position by lumping me in with what you classify as liberals.
So, what is the compelling interest to prohibit gay marriage?




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Well, no one else is saying it so i will. A lot of this comes down to personal religious beliefs of individuals. Yep, a lot of people believe it is an abomination to God, and therefore do not want it legal, as the law of the land, reason being, in my opinion, to not bring down some "wrath" or anger from God.

Come on, if you guys want to get into it, then really get into it. This whole issue oozes religion vs. atheism. Let's not beat around the bush here. Old religious traditions are being challenged, and little by little eroded away at. And that's got a bunch of folks' pantys in a bunch.

EDIT: oh and as to the state's compelling interest, i guess would be getting re-elected. (for the politicians)

That's all i have to say. Yes, i went there. Carry on.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by elcapitano75]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Test for you.

Hypothetically, five years from now a law or referendum is passed making gay marriage legal in a state. A judge or panel of judges reviews the law and declares that law unconstitutional for whatever reason.

Can you live with that, or would you be claiming the judges were legislating from the bench? If you say you could not live with that decision, then you have failed the hypocrisy test.

It could happen as the pendulum swings both ways.





[edit on 8/5/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LibertyLover

"Marriage is a contract to produce children."

Um, no, marriage is a private contract between two individuals. Children may, or may not, be produced as the result of marriage. What you are implying is that any marriage that does not produce children is not a "real" marriage. May the Gods preserve me from the machinations of idiots and fools.


A private contract about what??????

Marriage is a government Favored contract about raising children. Married people get tax breaks. This of course is discrimination against non married people for the benefit children produce to society.

Why should married people get a tax break if they dont have children?????

It has always been considered better if a child is raised by a man and a woman who are married. Illegitimate children of unmarried parents are called bastards.

If you eliminate the tax breaks and the children then there is no legal reason for marriage. People can live together however they like and split up whenever they like.

Marriage is related to religious monogamy the purpose of which is to preserve order by reducing polygamy and the resultant large numbers of unhappy single men.

The times they are a transmogrifying.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


UnConstitutional is UnConstitutional!
Usually, badly written laws are struck down, just like the California Law.
I'm not a hypocryte! I'm not religious, but I support freedom of religion.
I have no use for guns, but I support the Second Amendment!
OK?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


For information on what tax breaks married couples are qualified for check this out.The myth of the marriage penalty I would not call 42% of taxpayers filing jointly paying an average of $1,380 more in taxes than if they were single a preferred tax status. Granted that there was legislation that did reduce the penalties in 2001, in many cases it still does stand.

While studies do indicate that it is best for children to have both parents in the household at the same time as a 'family" environment. But again nowhere in the process of getting married is any mention of producing children present. Not in the process to obtain your license nor in the ceremony itself. You also do not have to be married to get a tax break for having children, and the tax break for having them is no different for married or single people.

There are plenty of other financial reasons to being married.
Studies show that married men tend to have better health and live longer.
There are also plenty of legal reasons to be married, your spouse has the ability to make medical care decisions on your behalf. Your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you in court. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights.

The government likes marriage because it promotes stability, however they have eroded much of that by making it rather easy to get a divorce anyway. Which by the way has an extremely harmful on the economy, it is very often paired with either a bankruptcy .and in many cases one of the parties being put under crippling debt. This would be the only interest the state should have in whether gay couples can marry or not.

As to the original question posed by Old Dragger, the State does not have a compelling interest in banning gay marriage.This measure and many other measures like it in quite a few States were promoted by the Republican Party in order to drive panic stricken homophobes to the polls to win an election. If the State had a compelling interest in gay marriage it would be decidedly for it because it would further promote financial stability, monogamous relationships that have a tendency to lower the spread of STD's.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says anyone has a right to marry anyone.

Sorry its a rhetorical question. the answer is you can't show me because no where in the U.S. Constitution does it say marriage is a right!

Since marriage is a religious act the State or the Federal Government should have no say on who gets married or not.

But since the states see marriage as another way of taxing us, they grant a privilege NOT A RIGHT TO MARRY!

Since state sanctioned marriage is a privilege the state can say who can and cannot marry. they can also set age limits on who can marry and cannot.

again NO ONE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY we only have a state privilege that each state sets its own requirements for.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says anyone has a right to marry anyone.


Equal Protection Clause

Quite simply, it is unconstitutional to provide marriage rights to some people (heterosexuals) and not other people (homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender).



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says anyone has a right to marry anyone.


Equal Protection Clause

Quite simply, it is unconstitutional to provide marriage rights to some people (heterosexuals) and not other people (homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender).



But thats the problem.....homosexuals,bisexuals,and transgender CAN get married. To the opposit GENDER. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone. I cant marry a man because im a man. A woman cant marry a women because shes a woman. Its not a sexuality thing. Its not a race thing. Its a gender thing.

No where in the constitution does it mention marriage. Because of that it goes to the states. The states should decide. And its not discriminatory because like i said before ANYONE can marry the opposit sex. NO ONE can marry the same sex.

Its really that simple.

Marriage is a privelage offered to EVERYONE. And one of the requirments to have that privelage is to marry the opposit gender......that simple.

"BUT...BUT.... they are gay they dont WANT to marry the opposit sex". NOT MY PROBLEM. you have the right to do so.....not my problem or the majoritys problem if a small minority does not exercise there right.

When you really just look at this logically you see a minority wanting to change the definition of marriage and the majority saying "back off".

Its essentially just a small percentage of the population unhappy with the way marriage is and want to change it. But the majority dont want it to change.

Its that simple.So they are not attracted to the opposit sex.......so? if im not mistaken most of you gay marriage activists and supporters have stated "marriage is a legal and social contract not a religious ceremony or made to make children" well if its just a contract.....what does attraction matter? So they are not attracted and dont WANT to marry the opposit sex.....that does not mean they dont have the RIGHT too marry the opposit gender....just like everyone else.

Dont like it? tough titty.

The Judge was wrong in this ruling for this simple reason. He based it under equal protections clause. Essentially he is saying they are being discriminated against.....which as i explained above is a fallacy because everyone is equal under marriage. we all have the right/privelage of marriage. One of the requirments is for it to be between a man and woman.

How can any of you not understand this? is it so difficult or are you thinking emotionally and not logically? Gay people have never been denied the right to marry. Thats dishonesty of the HIGHEST order.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by centurion1211
 


UnConstitutional is UnConstitutional!
Usually, badly written laws are struck down, just like the California Law.
I'm not a hypocryte! I'm not religious, but I support freedom of religion.
I have no use for guns, but I support the Second Amendment!
OK?


Just as I thought.

You can't/won't answer the question.

Unconstitutional is unconstitutional as determined by judges with their own personal agendas - just like the judge in this case.



Oh, and which interpretation of the 2nd amendment do you support? The one that allows the general public to own firearms, or the one that says only a "well regulated militia" can have firearms.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says anyone has a right to marry anyone.


Equal Protection Clause

Quite simply, it is unconstitutional to provide marriage rights to some people (heterosexuals) and not other people (homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender).



the same equal protection clause that allowed whites to prevent blacks from voting until the 1960's when the civil rights amendment was passed. is that the same equal protection clause you want to site here.

anyway lets look at the equal protection clause shall we


no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws


since every state allows a man to marry a woman there is no violation of the equal protection clause. any man is free to marry any woman that is willing to marry him. and like wise for woman. they are free to marry a man that is willing to marry them.


as i said before NO ONE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

you have a state PRIVILEGE. and a privilege is NOT A RIGHT.

You don't have right to marry you have a privilege to get married.
you don't have a right to drive a car you have a privilege to drive.
you don't have a right to have a job you have a privilege to work.

Requirements for privileges vary from state to state.
Some states you can legally with a license drive a car at the age of 14.
Some states allow a man to marry a man and a woman to marry woman Most do not. But they do allow a man to marry a woman.

Some states say a man and woman can get married at the age of 14 some states say they have to wait until the age of 18 ( younger with parental consent)

so since any man can marry a woman and any woman can marry a man of their choosing as long as they satisfy the states requirements to get married they can. and just because the state allows a privilege for a man and woman to get married does not mean that every man and woman couple will be granted a marriage license from the state either, even if they met all the state requirements for marriage.

if marriage was a constitutionally protected right, then the requirements for marriage would be the same in every state, not different requirements state to state. also if it was a constitutional right each state would have to honor marriages from another state. and no state has to honor a marriage license from another state if they choose not to.

So you fail trying to bend the equal protection clause to suit your agenda.

So would you care to try again and show where in the constitution it says ANYONE HAS A RIGHT TO MARRY?

[edit on 8/5/2010 by Mercenary2007]

[edit on 8/5/2010 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger

SO, here's a question.
What is the States compelling interest in banning gay marriage?



I dont know...why dont you ask everyone who VOTED in favor to ban it.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

as i said before NO ONE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

you have a state PRIVILEGE. and a privilege is NOT A RIGHT.



Right.

But for that privilege to be constitutional, it must be equally and universally applied to all citizens.

For those who claim that everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender, don't make me laugh. It's just like saying anyone has the right to marry someone of the same skin color or ethnicity (this was an actual law at one time). You probably would have defended the Jim Crow laws under the same logic (separate but equal).

You people who are against gay marriage are against it simply because you want to limit the freedoms of other people. The sooner you accept this simple truth, the sooner we can all move on from this ridiculous debate.

Love knows no boundaries. This I can assure you.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 




But for that privilege to be constitutional, it must be equally and universally applied to all citizens.


it is applied equally to all citizens.

everyone is able to marry 1 person of the opposite sex at a time. as long as they meet the requirements for marriage in their state.

everyone that applies for a marriage license in a state faces the same requirements from that state. theres no discrimination there.



For those who claim that everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender, don't make me laugh. It's just like saying anyone has the right to marry someone of the same skin color or ethnicity (this was an actual law at one time). You probably would have defended the Jim Crow laws under the same logic (separate but equal).


and the same people that argue for Same sex marriage also argue against allowing people to marry multiple partners, they also argue that an adult shouldn't be able to marry a child etc etc. little bit hypocritical for your camp to think its ok to allow gays to marry but not other minority groups. I know your going to come back and say that those other minority groups won't say well since gays can marry then so should we. because you know aswell as i do that they will!

So lets take a look at the 14th amendment to the constitution where the Equal protection Clause is.

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.


Bold is mine.

The reason the arguement that the equal protection clause fails everytime for the same sex marriage supporters is because everyone is able to marry 1 person of the opposite sex at a time. as long as they meet the requirements for marriage in their state.

has due process been done in california for gay marriage? yes it has. the bill was introduced to the california legislator, they decided to put it up for vote by the people of their state following the rules of California's State Constitution. the MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA SAID THEY WANT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEN A MAN AND WOMAN!

Are they wrong? maybe but they made their decission whether you agree with that decission or not. Due process was served!

Nobodies RIGHTS have been taken away. Gays have the same privilege of marriage that straights do.

I could really care less if gays marry eachother ornot. My arguement is when people like yourself assume you have a right to something when you don't. The U.S. Constitution is very limited in scope and power on what the government can control and what they cannot control. Any Power not given to the federal government rests with the states and powers not given to the states reside with THE PEOPLE. And The Majority of people say they don't want to redefine marriage they want it left as between a man and a woman for now!

So again Show me where exactly it says in the constitution that anyone has a right to marry I know you can't but i do love watching people try and bend and interprut the constitution to fit their agenda.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007




But for that privilege to be constitutional, it must be equally and universally applied to all citizens.


it is applied equally to all citizens.

everyone is able to marry 1 person of the opposite sex at a time. as long as they meet the requirements for marriage in their state.


It is applied equally to all citizens.

Everyone is able to marry 1 person of the same color at a time. As long as they meet the requirements for marriage in their state.






and the same people that argue for Same sex marriage also argue against allowing people to marry multiple partners, they also argue that an adult shouldn't be able to marry a child etc etc. little bit hypocritical for your camp to think its ok to allow gays to marry but not other minority groups.


Polygamy should be legal. There is simply no rational argument against allowing multiple consenting adults to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, religion, position or beliefs.

Consenting adults being the operative phrase. A child cannot legally consent, so a child cannot legally be wed. It's really that simple.



I think this bears repeating:



Originally posted by drwizardphd
You people who are against gay marriage are against it simply because you want to limit the freedoms of other people. The sooner you accept this simple truth, the sooner we can all move on from this ridiculous debate.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
This is one of those issues which seems simple to most but really is complex.

First, damn near everyone within this thread has forgotten one very important issue about the American system of government. WE elected every damn politician, be it good or bad; we have done this to ourselves.

That being said, the people we put into office reflected the majority of the views of the voters. Again, good or bad, depending on view.

Many States have passed some sort of marriage law and there has been a tradition within America, that marriage is a State's right. I think it is, but there is more.

Marriage between a man and woman is historical in context in western civilization. The Bible mentions Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Now for the fundamental shift that I believe we are experiencing.

Slavery was an accepted practice for as long as marriage between two sexes. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who says slavery wasn't a civil rights issue in today's world. Slavery is still prevalent in parts of the world and considered abhorrent by most civilized countries.

We Americans went through a fundamental change in thought by abolishing slavery. We even fought a war over that fundamental change. One of the bloodiest engagements of mankind to that date. No nation would be allowed to have a war like that now without someone bigger stepping in to stop it.

What many people don't understand about the Civil War, other than it was war but not civil, was that is WAS ABOUT State's rights and not slavery. States had set up different laws about property and what constituted property, the "free" states had a total different view of property.

We are now at the cusp of the issue. America's judicial system using the very laws we enacted for emancipating other people, are being used based on gender preference instead of race.

This is a fundamental shift of thought, just as a free black man in the South 150 years ago.

We didn't like it then either for the most part, you can see the emotion now with this issue.

What I find most amusing about this is I've been a declared Republican and extraordinary conservative on most issues, since Goldwater ran for office. Yeah, I'm an old conservative republican, but I see this in historical context. Many people won't get this and will have to change, screaming and shouting all the way.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


If a straight couple cant have children then do they have the right to buy babies???

Marriage isnt about being able to have babies! lol..!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 



HAHA a gender issue!!! hahahahah... well i call that discrimination then!

If two people cannot marry because of their gender its like saying a black and a white man and women are not allowed to marry!

I think sometimes humans need to realise that they have more potential then simply battering away at people who are different to themselves. I say let same genders marry and if anyone has a problem with it, say a man has a problem with it, that man isnt involved in the peoples lives who have got married. its a problem with that man, who cannot accept anything other than what he believes is right.

The old days are changing, society is going to change and these ideals of only a man and a women can marry will change in time. And when it does the world will become a loving and more humble place to live!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 




Polygamy should be legal. There is simply no rational argument against allowing multiple consenting adults to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, religion, position or beliefs.

Consenting adults being the operative phrase. A child cannot legally consent, so a child cannot legally be wed. It's really that simple.



quess you don't realize that in most states that yes children of a certain age can be married to adults with parental consent. whether the child consents or not is a different question.

And Don't get me wrong I agree with you that marring children should be illegal. But whats to say they couldn't make a conviencing arguement that an older person marring a child is part of their religion or beliefs. Are you still going to be a hypocrite and say no your minority group can't marry even though gays are a minority group and want to marry.

Did you even think about anyother group that would try and follow in the gays footsteps to get ther version of marriage legalized? no you didn't all you care about is what affects you and you don't care about anyone else.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the constitution it says anyone has a right to marry! quit with the straw man arguements and show your proof that marriage is a right! I know you have to resort to straw man arguements and try to attack people that don't agree with you because you know there is no right to marry for anyone, just a privilege. and a privilege that is applied to everyone equally!

If you ask me the institution of marriage should be abolished, i know you wouldn't like that because then gays would be just like everyone else! Oh wait they already are, they can marry, just someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


When it comes to what is and is not protected by the constitution, the best place to look would be at the Supreme Court of the United States, as the justices are there to judge the laws and determine what is and is not protected by the Constitution and thus is legal and illegale. They will use prior court rulings. In answer to your question, the right to marry, was determined in the Loving case. While it is not written per say as the freedom to marry is in the Constitution, however prior court cases that have been ruled on by the Supreme court of the United States, has stated that it is protected, as a basic civil right in the orderly pursuit of happiness. The individual states do have to honor the license of marriage from one state to another, based off of the commerce clause in the Constitution of the United States.
Now the reasons for banning gay marriage, comes down to 2 factors, one is fear, and fear of something new. Back when ever there has been a change to what is viewed as a norm for society, there is a strong reaction against that change, even if that change would result in equality for others in a particular group. This was best seen during the Civil rights era, and the suffrage movements before that. The next part of doing such, and unfortunately when it starts up with anything dealing with gay people, it has been found that the religious portions of society have gotten involved in politics. This case and the one before that, both had a major religious group were a motivating factor behind such, seeking to force a religious moral directive on the rest of society, rather than letting society make that determination up for itself.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join