50% of people who answered this poll are IDIOTS!

Maybe the OP shoud read the entire Constitution. I do not have to point out where as others already have. That should clear up your confusion and let to say your sorry for calling people idiots who were clearly correct.

I believe one of the last times the Supreme Court ruled on marriage was to uphold "Equal Protection" of the 14th Amendment to override states' laws preventing inter-racial marriages. That was not too many decades ago when a number of US citizens were outraged by the federal government stepping in to allow mixed races to be married or have their marriages recognized in ALL states even though voters in some of those states objected to having mixed black/white couples living among them. The nerve!

I have to say, for folks that are fine with turning to the central Government in Washington? Two things come to mind here.

First, you won't get to be picky and choosy about this in the long term. Bush is a safe and distant memory to folks..but what he represented isn't gone. Not by a long shot. It'll be back. Over 200 years of history absolutely guarantees it will be back. When that far Right replaces the Far left, as is our tradition in this nation (and I don't look forward to THAT extreme any more than I tolerate THIS one), what is set for power and control precedent now will apply 100% equally to all the BAD ideas of the other side in power. We're all just fine with that, right?

Power surrendered is power GONE....not just given temporarily. Not with the Feds of this modern era.

Second... If we are to accept the majority rule of 51% over 49% concept ..I.E... Numbers are ALL that matters and popular sentiment of the day rules ultimate structural change within the power balance of our nation? Then lets drop the nonsense and piece meal approach here.

Let's have an *HONEST* public debate about whether we do, in fact, want to maintain the Republic system of Government as what the United States follows. What we see now is NOT a Republic. We're deep in the transition to central control of almost all aspects of life and with or without the consent of the Governed if they are among the group not currently on the proper side of those in power.

If the nation, by and large, chooses to walk away from a Republic in favor of something else? I'll have to accept that and make peace with it. I'd hope everyone else would or leaves for greener pastures. That is how our system has been designed to work ...if it comes by the end of HONEST and open discourse and debate about it.

It's this piece by piece move into a whole new form of Governance than was ever clearly intended by any aspect of our Founding documents and structure that I've just about had my fill of. Prior to Obama coming to Office, I'd have found plenty to agree ....now, because the causes it's being done in the name of are attractive? The hammer we're being hit with is welcomed, not fought. That WILL be an interesting thing to watch when the pendulum comes roaring back down for a swing back up the other side of politics.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


However, I think you are exaggerating the point.

The government isn't defining marriage. That is what those opposed same-sex marriage asked for, in this case, and the court said there is no constitutional basis. However, you can't have it both ways. If you want government to stay out of people's lives . . . you can't then say it's not discriminatory for states to limit marriage to certain individuals only.

That is where this becomes a 14th amendment issue (albeit implied, as the 14th only specifically mentions race). However, the court already expanded the 14th to include sex (male/female) as being afforded equal protection. The question then becomes if sexual orientation is also protected, which it already is under federal labor laws. If so, then no state can stipulate what marriage constitutes in this manner, as well. Just like they can't stipulate marriage must be of the same race.

That is not "running to government" . . . those are powers they already enjoy. Unless, you feel they shouldn't rule on the other issues like race and sex, as well?

reply to post by FortAnthem


You may want to look up the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

I'd do it for you, but I think this is something you should do on your own....education works best when one has the motivation to do it for themselves.

Everyone is missing the bigger picture.
The reason why Govt got involved with marriage is the taxation issue and control. Nothing more.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

You may want to look up the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

I did look it up.

Thus it was Congress power to enforce laws guaranteed to all for the protection of life, liberty and property from arbitrary government action. The equal protection of the laws disable legislatures and judges from unequally administering those rights of justice the State guarantees to all men (everyone has a right to process of law before being put to death, property confiscated or imprisoned)

Wiki

I don't see how a state defining who is allowed to marry infringes on anyone's right to life, liberty or pursuit of property from arbitrary government action. The states prevent cousins from marrying to avoid inbred children and also forbid polygamy. Should the feds throw out these limits as well?

Marriage is recognized by the state because it provides the best and most stable environment for the raising of children. The states should be allowed to define marriage as they see fit within their borders. To invite the feds in to meddle with this only invites more intrusion into a host of other issues in which the federal government has no right to interfere.

Public opinion is moving quickly towards giving gays the right to marry throughout the country. It is only a matter of time before it becomes accepted by all the states. Gay rights advocates only need to exercise the virtue of patience to see their cause come to fruition. To have the feds impose their will on the states now may incur a backlash by the states against federal intrusion.

It is best to keep the various levels of government in their place and avoid giving all power to the federal government to impose their will throughout the nation from afar. Its bad enough that Washington is totally out of touch with the people of the states they claim to represent and are totally beholden to the big corporations and special interest lobbyists in Washington. Do you really want the feds, who are bought and paid for by the big corporations micromanaging every aspect of your life?

It is best to keep local decisions local and to recognize the federalist model of government to keep Washington's corruption from ruling in your own home state. Washington has ignored the limits placed on its power for far too long, allowing it to intrude into every aspect of our personal lives. It is time for the states to step up and say "enough" and demand the feds to get out of their business.

reply to post by FortAnthem


The equal protection clause had to be used to tell the idiotic States that interracial couples could marry.

Gay marriage is no different.


I make it no secret that I am not a fan of States rights...I wouldn't mind seeing them all removed and all laws be at the federal level.

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

You may want to look up the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

I did look it up.

Thus it was Congress power to enforce laws guaranteed to all for the protection of life, liberty and property from arbitrary government action. The equal protection of the laws disable legislatures and judges from unequally administering those rights of justice the State guarantees to all men (everyone has a right to process of law before being put to death, property confiscated or imprisoned)

Wiki

I don't see how a state defining who is allowed to marry infringes on anyone's right to life, liberty or pursuit of property from arbitrary government action. The states prevent cousins from marrying to avoid inbred children and also forbid polygamy. Should the feds throw out these limits as well?

Marriage is recognized by the state because it provides the best and most stable environment for the raising of children. The states should be allowed to define marriage as they see fit within their borders. To invite the feds in to meddle with this only invites more intrusion into a host of other issues in which the federal government has not right to interfere.

Public opinion is moving quickly towards giving gays the right to marry throughout the country. It is only a matter of time before it becomes accepted by all the states. Gay rights advocates only need to exercise the virtue of patience to see their cause come to fruition. To have the feds impose their will on the states now may incur a backlash by the states against federal intrusion.

It is best to keep the various levels of government in their place and avoid giving all power to the federal government to impose their will throughout the nation from afar. Its bad enough that Washington is totally out of touch with the people of the states they claim to represent and are totally beholden to the big corporations and special interest lobbyists in Washington. Do you really want the feds, who are bought and paid for by the big corporations micromanaging every aspect of your life?

It is best to keep local decisions local and to recognize the federalist model of government to keep Washington's corruption from ruling in your own home state. Washington has ignored the limits placed on its power for far too long, allowing it to intrude into every aspect of our personal lives. It is time for the states to step up and say "enough" and demand the feds to get out of their business.

edit on 4/5/13 by FortAnthem because:

____________ extra DIV

reply to post by macman

Originally posted by macman
Everyone is missing the bigger picture.
The reason why Govt got involved with marriage is the taxation issue and control. Nothing more.

No one is missing that. It's just irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about why government is involved in marriage. The fact is, under current law, they ARE. We're talking about CURRENT laws being applied equally to all citizens. Not WHY government is involved in marriage.

And government marriage is a CHOICE. No one is MAKING people get married. It's totally voluntary. If you don't want government involved in your marriage, don't ASK them to be. Another very simple concept.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


If you don't know or recognize the why, then you will miss the how.

reply to post by Hawking


You people with your gay agenda are missing the point of the OP. The OP is saying that marriage should not be an issue for the constitution or Congress. You either want the separation of Church and state or you do not. Idiots can argue that marriage is not religious and it was around before the Bible and with prehistoric man. That's bunk. Marriage has always been a religious bond. It was not until the last 40 or 50 years or so that people started going to justices of the peace for marriage to avoid a large wedding or whatever their reasons are. Leave marriage alone. If you wish to be perverse and unnatural then keep it in your own bedroom.

You may want to look up the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

So who is "discriminating " against them?

Oh the same people they are crying to make them equal apparently that makes sense to others.

Not to me.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by Hawking

 

You people with your gay agenda are missing the point of the OP. The OP is saying that marriage should not be an issue for the constitution or Congress. You either want the separation of Church and state or you do not. Idiots can argue that marriage is not religious and it was around before the Bible and with prehistoric man. That's bunk. Marriage has always been a religious bond. It was not until the last 40 or 50 years or so that people started going to justices of the peace for marriage to avoid a large wedding or whatever their reasons are. Leave marriage alone. If you wish to be perverse and unnatural then keep it in your own bedroom.

Absolute hogwash . . .

In the past, marriages were arranged and usually due to political or financial concerns. I know Christians let simple things like world history disrupt their biblical view of things, so maybe you actually believe what you wrote. While marriages were generally recognized by the religious establishment, that has more to do with the Church controlling legality in past times . . . not with it being a "religious bond" or having anything to do with today's generally accepted concept "love". Did some people get married as part of strickly religious beliefs or tenants? Sure . . . but, don't act like that is the only reason and it's just recently that they are not. Religion wrote the rules in the past and that is the only reason contracts had to adhere to the religion.

So, Asians, Indians, Celts, Africans, Egyptians, etc. only took wives based on Judeo-Christian principles and the Bible which either wasn't even written yet, or better yet, known to those cultures at the time? Seriously?

ETA - unfortunately, states have already made laws about marriage, usually based on religious beliefs not everybody agrees with. If two women got married in a Wiccan ceremony and lived their lives . . . you wouldn't know about it. Unfortunately, archaic Christian morallity laws and their insistance that they somehow define marriage make the previous union illegal. Thus . . . making you "know" about it. Get rid of marriage laws and everybody is happy? No?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by littled16

 

It shouldn’t even be up to the states.

Marriage has nothing to do with government. Any government.

Government, state and federal, should back off.

edit on 5-4-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

Indeed - it is just a carryover from the English system of feudalism. A tax levied for the "right" to marry. Many parish priests married the poor anyway but if they were not "legally" joined then their heirs lost any property or inheritance (which was rare for peasants anyway) should they have any.

Marriage is a religious institution not a secular one. My wife and I as agnostics had a civil ceremony which would be no different if we had happened to be two dudes IMO. Just call it something else. Call it a civil union or something...

Hell if 15 consenting adults want to enter into a civil union let them do so.

However, we'd have to first remove all of the government benefits granted to a "spouse". Same with our current employer/employee relationships - what insurance company wants to have to cover 13 wives (or husbands for that matter) for one employee?

reply to post by solomons path


Never ever said marriage was strictly Christian, I said it was religious. Now you can take your Godless Heathanistic agenda somewhere else and argue. You can't pervert what I said I won't let you.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by solomons path

 

Never ever said marriage was strictly Christian, I said it was religious. Now you can take your Godless Heathanistic agenda somewhere else and argue. You can't pervert what I said I won't let you.

It is not strictly religious...the government has gotten involved and it is now a legal matter.

If you want your marriage to be strictly religious, then be married in a church of your choosing but don't go get a marriage license. Don't make it official by the government, continue to file your taxes seperate, don't allow the legal protection of your assets to pass to your spouse, and don't get angry when you can't visit your spouse in the hospital if they are dying.

It is ironic when religious people want marriage to be all about religion...and then they also want all the legal benefits the government grants you along with it.

reply to post by solomons path


ETA - unfortunately, states have already made laws about marriage, usually based on religious beliefs not everybody agrees with. If two women got married in a Wiccan ceremony and lived their lives . . . you wouldn't know about it. Unfortunately, archaic Christian morallity laws and their insistance that they somehow define marriage make the previous union illegal. Thus . . . making you "know" about it. Get rid of marriage laws and everybody is happy? No?


I agree with you here because we would probably never ever hear about the Wiccan wedding. They are not out here putting their dirty laundry on display. This is one debate you will never ever win as long as there are level headed Christians left in this country. Pretty pathetic if you ask me, wanting gay marriage just so you can have monetary benefits. Bad little gays, bad.....such greed

Originally posted by neo96

You may want to look up the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

So who is "discriminating " against them?

Oh the same people they are crying to make them equal apparently that makes sense to others.

Not to me.

The States are discriminating against them.

Not sure why this is hard to understand.

What is your opinion on inter-racial marriage...do you think the Federal government shouldn't have been involved with that either?

reply to post by Christian Voice


ETA - didn't see your last post first . . .

However, your religious views on morallity are not shared by all. Gays aren't just after the money . . . they want the ceremony and recognition. Unfortunately, they are afforded that right when state laws granting and regulating marriage are on the books. I'm sure it's more about love and being "official" than greed.