Originally posted by SamaraTen
Sodom and Gomorrah is skewed? Ever heard of Greenwich Village or West Hollywood? Have you seen
how gay people act, in public, during their "gay pride parades"?
Originally posted by tnhiker
Why is this even an issue? The only reason it is an issue is religion makes it one. People say its gays trying to force acceptance; however, its
more like religions shoving their crap down everybodies throat.
Its been around since the beginning of time, hell there was even cities of it in the Bible(if you believe the skewed viewpoints presented there).
When you put aside all arguments and just think why you(nobody in particular, using you as a general statement) are against it, it is either from
religious viewpoints, or deep rooted homophobia.
No government function should be allowed to restrict peoples happiness. If being gay and marrying gay makes you happy, more power to you. Personally
I think any two people who love each other and live each other should be afforded all the benefits and rights of a married couple, mostly so they
don't have to get married to receive them.
Also, murder has been around since the beginning...lest you forget, does that make it "right"?
And again, what RIGHTS do married people have???? You act like married people get special privileges.
edit on 26-3-2013 by
SamaraTen because: (no reason given)
Yes,I have seen how those gay people act in public, the extreme fringe if you will. How is that any different from sports fans rioting after a game?
Extreme behavior and not based on the majority. I have several gay friends, all they want is the same treatment, nothing special.
Sodom and Gomorrah is skewed, as the only "known" accounting of it is from a religious text. Hell, the city was probably destroyed by a wildfire
and somebody claimed it was their god or something. Murder in itself is based on which side of the fight you are on. With the sanction of the
government it becomes legal. Or, in the bible although it is against a commandment, they are commanded to kill and kill and kill some more, sooo,
thats not a good example.
Married people get tax breaks, they get easier access to health benefits from their partners work, they are not looked down upon by society(mostly
religious because of that whole living in sin premarital sex crap they preach), get recognized in court battles, and in death have more rights then
live in partners do. So, whats wrong with allowing them to get married?
Since the main topic was constitutional legality, etc etc here goes.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
14th amendment, which I believe is the one in question. Since you seem to key in on the term "rights", lets ignore that word and look at the exact
wording. In this case, its privileges. As stated before, married people are given multiple privileges that non married people do not receive. By
creating laws that ban gay marriage, they are abridging the privileges. To abridge, is to curtail, or to deprive someone of something. Since married
people are protected by being married, allowed health benefits from their spouse, receive federal tax benefits for being married, and homosexual
companies are being denied that because of the anti gay marriage, the states are in the wrong. Any state that has a ban on gay marriage, is in direct
violation of the 14th amendment.
Now, because of the 10th amendment restricting government powers, the federal government cannot make gay marriage mandatory nationwide. But what the
federal government can do is two things. The supreme court can overturn any anti gay marriage law brought before it on a state by state case. Since
their job is to uphold the constitution, they would be bound by the 14th amendment to come down on states for that. Why this has not happened yet is
a mystery. The second thing the feds could do is extend the marriage benefits to co-habitation couples regardless of sexual orientation.
Bottom line is any state with an anti same sex marriage law, or any federal laws are direct violations of the constitution. Though, that doesn't
seem to stop them on many fronts.