Wednesday, November 12, 2008
and just for fun....
I would like to bring up a possibly not so popular topic. I know that a lot of people in the UC, on Leonard 7, and at AU in general are planning on going to the capital on Saturday to protest Proposition 8 that was passed banning gay marriage in California. People obviously have a right to protest and to disagree with that view, but I question what it is people here are protesting. Proposition 8 was put up to California voters (so first of all only people in California should really have a say in this particular amendment!...not to say that they can’t be upset about the defeat of gay rights in general) The fact is that Californians voted and they were able to legally ban it. Whether one is for/against gay rights, the people of California had a right to vote and they voted for it. If the courts were to overturn it, I feel like it would be an injustice to our whole system of democracy. Activist judges should not be able to disregard what the people want. For the record, I support gay rights, but I support the Constitution more, as I would with any issue. Gay marriage is a state issue; marriage is not in the Constitution! California had a right to vote on it, they did, and that vote, no matter how much I or anyone else may disagree, should count. To overturn it would be a gross abuse of power. I am not against protesting for gay rights!!! I am just upset that instead of rallying for gay rights, people are specifically protesting proposition 8 and that is not right to me. Don’t protest a legitimate vote by the people of a state, protest for a cause! If Proposition 8 is ever going to be overturned it should be by another vote, not by a judge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Many will say my presence at the Prop 8 protest on Saturday will do nothing. Prop 8 is a Californian affair. But what this protest aims to do isn't to somehow succeed in overturning the bill. Ideally, it will. But I know it won't. What it symbolizes for me is a show of solidarity with my fellow human beings who are being unfairly discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation. I'm not going advocating some activist judge in California or on the Supreme Court to do what his job arguably instructs him to do in overturning a blatantly morally- and constitutionally-wrong act of the majority. Nor do I expect to change minds. Ideally, I could. But for me, showing up on the Capitol is about standing up for what is right.
There are some situations where I see a violation of rights, and yes, I don't care about the Constitution anymore. It's not a suicide pact for national freedom. It's meant to protect it. And when I see an egregious violation of rights like that in Prop 8, I can and will exercise my Constitutional right to protest. What I see in front of me is an unjust violation of the rights of a fellow human being, and I'm not going to wait for the democratic process to ultimately fail yet again because of an archaic decision unconstitutionally respecting the rule of a certain religion, of which I happen to be a damn proud adherent. I will likely frivolously fight the will of the majority. My presence at the protest will not serve to educate Americans about what is right. But I refuse to see some of my best friends in the world be treated as second-class citizens, regardless of the ineffectiveness of my show of support for them. Democracy doesn't allow the citizenry to bludgeon the view of the minority with the Constitution intended to protect them.
While I see your point that Prop 8 is a California issue, I'm going to the protest because I see it as a matter of principle that goes against all I believe in.
I see gay rights as a matter of civil rights. The 1920's brought us women's sufferage, the 60's the racial integration of schools. I believe that equal rights for homosexual couples to be the great issue of equality of our time.
My godfather is gay. He has been with his partner for 24 years now. How can a couple of 24 years not be considered a legal couple? I don't care what religious institutions say about gay marraige, whether or not they are willing to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples is up to them. But I know my godfather loves his partner, but legally, I believe I should be able to say he loves his husband.
Let me introduce you to the Seamus McGregor template for gay marraige. As a straight male; I look at gay marraige by asking myself a few questions. First, will the fact that two men or women can marry make me love my future wife less? Second, Does gay marraige somehow threaten or cheapen my marraige? Last, am I comfortable with others receiving fewer rights than myself? To all three questions, I answer no.
As far as judges radically threatening the constitution by declaring prop 8 illegal, I feel that such action is not that of an activist judge, but rather a protection of the equal rights stated explicitly in the constitution that extends to all American citizens. It is for the above-mentioned reasons I will be at the Capitol Saturday afternoon.
I am also attending the protest on Saturday. I think it is important for me to support something I believe in. I believe that gays should have the right to marriage. If I disagree with a decision, I have the right to protest it. If anything, the purpose of the protest is to get across an idea. By having protests in all major cities across the nation, we put people behind the idea, thus we give power to the idea. Legislatures are afraid to come out and support gay marriage because the majority of voters seem to be against it. By making a nationwide statement against the ban, we are letting legislatures everywhere know that we will not stand by when our neighbors are denied rights. While I know that when we are older and start wielding political power, we have the...er...guts to stand up for the equal rights of every American of every race, gender, and sexual orientation. However, I am hopeful that we can get our point across and not quietly accept the restriction of freedoms of others.
“I am hopeful that we can get our point across and not quietly accept the restriction of freedoms of others.”..... “we will not stand by when our neighbors are denied rights.”.....“What I see in front of me is an unjust violation of the rights of a fellow human being”.....................................................
First of all I'd like to say to all of those remarks that MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, NOR IS IT ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! The fact that marriage isn't in the constitution is what makes it a state's issue and what gives the citizens of California the RIGHT to vote on it in the first place!
Second I'd like to address two of Bovice's statements. 1. that Proposition 8 is “a blatantly morally- and constitutionally-wrong act of the majority.” While you may think that it is, there are people who would disagree with that. There are religious people who, whether you like it or not, believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. They have a right to an opinion just as much as you do. This is why the first amendment is so important, because it protects both the speech you most hate, and the ability to say how much you hate it. I have no problem with you thinking that, as I am more inclined to agree with your position anyway, but Woah! Don't state your opinion as fact.
Second you say that “showing up on the Capitol is about standing up for what is right." Again, what is right is a relative statement, not a fact.
Next I'd like to say that Bovice, 2 of your questions are completely irrelevant to the gay marriage debate. You stated that:
1.) “Will the fact that two men or women can marry make me love my future wife less?
A. Of course it won't, no one is saying it will.
2.)" Does gay marriage somehow threaten or cheapen my marriage?
A. I’m not saying I agree with this, but there is a legitimate argument on the other side that says that it will. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. However, given the unstable legal background of gay marriage if made legal, it is possible that some judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two? Who will be able to deny them that right?
3.) Last, “am I comfortable with others receiving fewer rights than myself”?
again... State recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. I am not trying to say that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to gay couples. I only want to give all the facts and to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated. I also think this is for good reason.
Personally, if there would be any reason for me to oppose gay marriage it would be because I see marriage as a religious term, which is why I am more inclined to support civil unions. I understand that people can be "married" by the state and not in a church, but I think those marriages should be called civil unions as well.
But there are secular reasons for why marriage should be regulated. When a state recognizes a marriage, it gives the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. For example, being able to collect a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy, are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a way, a married couple receives a subsidy. But a reason why they receive these benefits is because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. I know that a small minority of married couples are infertile. But few people who are sterile know they are, and mandatory fertility tests would be too expensive and burdensome for the government to mandate.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because it will enable gays to live in committed relationships. But gays can live in committed relationships today. People claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but when I looked it up, they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. And I also found that there is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which gay couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Finally I would like to end with a quote I found on the internet by Adam Kolasinski, who is a doctoral student at MIT in financial economics. "The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can’t it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."
Before all of you hate me after you read this I want everyone to know that I am not arguing against gay marriage because it is something that I necessarily want to prevent from happening! For the most part I just want to present another point of view that I think is missing from the class (like I did in my post about the financial crisis). I don’t necessarily agree/ hold any of these opinions myself; I simply want them made available so all the facts are there to argue. That is especially my reason for pointing out the secular arguments against gay marriage, because too often people see religion as the only reason people are against it, which isn’t true. I have many gay friends who are extremely passionate about gay marriage, and honestly, I can’t say if I were them that I wouldn’t be too. But I am torn on this issue. I love my friends and I would never want to hurt them, but I don’t want society to get to a place where anyone and everyone can be married, nor do I think government should be involved with marriage in the first place.
Michele, the whole point behind the protest is that we believe it is a right. I didn’t bring the Constitution into it because I do not think the Constitution is all we should consider when we talk about rights. It is an outline of our system, not the definition.
Of course people disagree with us that is why we can protest. You contradict yourself by mentioning the First Amendment because that is why we can protest. I do not hate people who do not want gay people to get married.
I am bothered by the fact that you state that the historical definition should be what we base our laws on. Historically blacks have been considered less intelligent and more primitive than whites, does that mean we should stick to traditions that are incompatible with the present situation of society?
Marrying one person whom you love and want to be with for life is the equivalent to marrying 5 people? Or animals? Honestly? I am sure that gay people are thrilled to be considered equivalent to goats or horses or any other animal. I do not think a monogamous relationship between two people should ever be compared to polygamy. Oh, and if the introduction of gay marriage would bring about the legalization of polygamy, perhaps there would be a little more support from a select few Mormons? I am also sure that homosexuals will be thrilled about being considered in the same category as incestuous people.
Marriage is heavily regulated? Do I really need to bring up Britney Spears’ Vegas wedding?
Marriage is a religious term? So I guess anyone nonreligious should be denied the right to be married as well? Freedom of religion includes the freedom to not have a religion. Or should we make rules that only people of certain religions should get married? Plus, people can get married by the state. People who are not married in a church should be considered to be in civil unions? That would be a violation of the First Amendment; you are denying rights to people who do not have religious beliefs. Constitutionally, that is wrong.
Saying that gay people only want to be married to get benefits is unfair. If someone wants to have a husband or a wife to have and to hold as long as they both shall live is a reason to get married. This is not a crazy plan to destroy the American economy. That is easily done without the involvement of gay marriage.
The idea that homosexuals only want to get married for sexual reasons and that this should be a reason to deny them that right as stated by Adam Kolasinski is bogus. Maybe some do, but I am sure some don’t. Maybe some straight people do, maybe they don’t. That is not a legitimate reason to deny someone a marriage license because marriage is not regulated that way. Since you do not think the state should be involved with marriage, I think you would agree. People can engage in sexual love without being married. This is very evident from living on a college campus. The emotional love and monogamy between two people is sanctioned by the state, not the sexual love of multiple people.
Gay marriage would not all of a sudden give legitimacy to people marrying multiple people, or fathers marrying daughters, or people marrying animals. I love my friends who are homosexual and I believe that they can love as deeply as I can. I understand their desire for a monogamous binding relationship. But, I also will fight for the right for gay people to enter into fleeting marriages just like straight people do. Other than the sex of the person that they love, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. They deserve to have all the rights that I have.
The benefits extended as a result are selective and come into conflict with pre-existing service-based anti-discrimination legislation. Banning marriage cuts down on benefits available to homosexual couples. You can't argue that the state can recognize heterosexual marriages and not recognize those of homosexual ones. Additionally, issues such as the nullification debate/the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions/etc. show how states are still subject to the Constitution. As I have thusfar proven gay marriage to be a matter of equal rights, it is in fact a Constitutional issue.
I can in fact say what I believe is right to be fact. I consider it to be a fact that right denial is wrong, and as an American Christian, I will not stand for it.
There is absolutely no basis for your argument criticizing my critique of marriage. You argued a logical fallacy in saying that gays' right to marry will somehow set a precedent allowing me to marry my toaster. This sort of slippery slope argumentation isn't accepted in academic discourse, and carries no legitimacy in any sort of argument.
Your arguments relating to marriage restriction don't prove anything. First off, bans on syphillis or incestuous marriages would be due to health concerns. Homosexual marriage carries no such implications. You aren't defending heterosexual relations here. You're saying it's okay to deny homosexuals marriage, who do absolutely nothing wrong and hurt you in no way. The Constitution was designed as a negative social contractual agreement. The insinuation that it's okay to deny rights because of the will of the minority makes no legalistic sense.
If I've learned anything in life, it's that love is universal. You've just tried to give practical reasons against homosexual marriage, because it's "too expensive." This argument is ludicrous. The cost is 43.5 million dollars (www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/S2521FiscalAnalysis_WilliamsInst.pdf). That's a drop in the bucket to extend rights to people who have earned them. This proves the point that there is literally no pragmatic argument against homosexual marriage. None. And all that remains is a religious dogma partially based in the misinterpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah (I'll let Michael expound on this one if you want the full story.). The social definition of marriage has evolved in the modern world such that even heterosexual couples want to get married only so they can get divorced by the time they're 50 and everyone, regardless of faith, get married under the state's umbrella. We can all say ideally that the government should have no role in marriage, yet the system is so thoroughly entrenched that you can't get rid of homo or heterosexual marriages and their connection with the state. And you say that homosexuals can already obtain the same benefits, all while conceding they have to go around the state to obtain them, because they won't provide them. That defies the definition of the public good marriage benefits are supposed to represent. It limits the supply, making it an undervalued unmarketed commodity. The state cannot make the two have the same benefits, but make sure there are different means of obtaining them. "Separate but equal" ring any bells to you?
And if I have learned anything about love in my two years dating the same girl, it's that its universal. Marriage isn't about damn procreation. If that was what it stood for, marriage would be a bond I would hold between myself and every woman I had ever had sex with who had produced a child. Marriage is so much deeper than that. It's about love. And my respect for love as a feeling granted to me by God Himself runs so much deeper than a dogmatic construct that doesn't even have legitimate Biblical support. I refuse to stand by as I see this sort of travesty continue. These aren't even legitimate arguments. Replying to them can be summed up in two clauses: there is no pragmatic benefit to banning homosexual benefits, and the church-state secularization demand prevents the institutionalization of non-practical religious ordinances.
"dont protest a vote, protest a cause"
But, Michelle, that is precisely what people are planning to do. Its not just a vote - it's what the vote stands for, and it is pretty obvious that the vote stands for a valid cause. Those who will be attending the protest on Saturday are not going out there aimlessly, they are going out the with a purpose. What happened (well, what didn't happen) in California, deserves every bit of attention that it has been receiving in the past week. If you support gay rights then how can you not support such an event? The passing of Proposition 8 doesn't only affect those who live in California as you suggest it does. Implementing gay rights in one state offers a beacon of hope that other states will do the same. We are The United States of American for a reason, and the passing of a state bill does not therefore disqualify other states from becoming involved in the matter. We are a nation that is undergoing many long over due changes, and without protests such as the one that will take place this Saturday, such changes would not occur - and they desperately need to.
Michele:
You posted:
"But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.""
In response to this, I would like to pose a question to you: would you support a theoretical automatic annulment of marriages when the female in the marriage hits menopause, or has their "tubes tied", at which point they are unable to raise children? What about marriages where both partners have expressed an unwillingness to bear children in the first place? Following your logic, marriage has the sole purpose of supporting those who reproduce, so of course those who are found to be uncapable of or unwilling to bearing / bear children due to medical or
genetic conditions have their marriages automatically annulled. Right?
(hint: wrong)
You also wrote:
"I don’t want society to get to a place where anyone and everyone can be married,"
Hey, bad news. It already is. Obivously, see: Britney Spears' forty hour marriage. The civil institution of marriage nowadays has next to nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage, and, as a secularist, I frankly prefer it this way. Marriage is meaningless when Britney Spears can get married on a whim and when the divorce rate is higher than ever before. Again, in reponse to your claim of the "sanctity" of marriage, I put forth as a counterargument: BRITNEY SPEARS.
"...nor do I think government should be involved with marriage in the first place."
Nor do I! But you're the one who wants the government involved in my ability to express my true love for another man through marriage. I'm the one who wants less government interference in my own personal, private life. Isn't that a Republican position? Smaller government? It's funny - you claim to be a republican, and yet you support increased government action in MY own life. It seems to me that you have fallen into the trap of following the modern republican party line - that of the christian conservatives - as compared to the old-school conservatives - those of yore, who would have said that the government should not be involved in the private life of
citizens. I'd personally prefer that right now, as I am so OVER people telling me who I can and cannot marry, who I can and cannot express my love for. Listen, Michele, and I'm saying this personally, not as as criticism of your argument. When you say that you think that I should not be able to marry somebody because I just so happen to be male and the person i just so happen to love is also, as it would happen, male, I think less of you for it. I think so much less of you for thinking that marriage is about reproduction instead of love, in spite of such obvious evidence as fake marriages such as Britney Spears' and such evidnece as the fact that infertile couples are allowed to marry. To restate my main point: through your actions, you are trying to limit my ability to love who I chose, and I think less of you for it.
Wait, what??? I haven't finished reading your post, but where are you getting me comparing gay people to animals from??? I never mentioned the word animal. I have a 5 page paper due tommorrow that I haven't started on so I won't get to really respond to the rest of your post until at least tommorrow. But I will say this, I do think people who are non-religious should be able to marry, I was just saying I don't think it is necessary to call it "marriage". I think this would be a way to get people who oppose gay marriage based on religion to back off the issue a little bit, because then they wouldn't be able to say it will ruin "marriage". But of course, I think all people should get the same benefits, such as seeing your loved one in the hospital because you will be considered family.
And yes, I understand that you feel like gay marriage is the right thing to do and that's why your protesting, I was just trying to illistrate that other people feel like they are right too just as strongly, but now that I re-read what I wrote, I probably shouldn't have said it the way I did. I would like to correct myself then and say that I understand (and agree with you).
When I talked about the historical defnition of marriage, I wasn't referring to the reasoning against gay marriage. I was referring to our leagal system and the precedent it has in our legal system.I am not saying that because history says homosexuality is wrong that is a good reason to keep it illegal. I was trying to say that by making gay marriage legal, other unions, with multiple people will have more reasoning to also say they should be able to marry. Because why should they not be alloweed the same rights if we are going to start making exceptions for an alternative union that didn't exist before, when marriage was originally established.
"People who are not married in a church should be considered to be in civil unions? That would be a violation of the First Amendment; you are denying rights to people who do not have religious beliefs. Constitutionally, that is wrong."
gain, I'm not understanding how you can say that denying the right of marriage is constitutionally wrong when it's not even in the constitution?
"Saying that gay people only want to be married to get benefits is unfair." Except that I never said that, nor do I think that!I know that the reason gay couples want to get married is because they love each other. I only brought up the benefits to argue why some people are against gay marriage, not because that's all gay couples want.
"Other than the sex of the person that they love, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals." I would only disagree in that heterosexual couples can have kids and homosexual couples cannot. The only reason I think this is significant is because of the idea that government looks at marriage in a self-interest way. That marriage is controlled by the government even a little bit because they want to provide for future generations, so they will give benefits to couples, some of which go towards helping to build a family.
"The idea that homosexuals only want to get married for sexual reasons and that this should be a reason to deny them that right as stated by Adam Kolasinski is bogus." I don't think that is what he was talking about. He was saying that he doesn't think marriage should be just for love, because then people should be able to get married to anyone, or how many people they want, based soley on the fact that they "love" them. Not that love isn't the most important thing in a marriage, because it is! But by making gay marriage legal, marriage will no longer have a definition. I don't see how it still can? One word can not mean 2 or more completly different things. What would you define as marriage then??
...ok so I guess I still haven't written my paper! lol
Wow, ok so now there's 9 comments...I can't read all these. I have to write my paper!!! But anyway, that last post was in response to Tori's last post. I didn't get to see the other posts when I was writting my response to hers.
"given the unstable legal background of gay marriage if made legal, it is possible that some judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two? Who will be able to deny them that right? "
This is a slippery slope argument. It's a logical fallacy. Because its 1:38 in the morning, rather than explain the slippery slope myself I'll direct you to that omniscient nexus of knowledge, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. But to summarize, you have no actual proof that legalizing gay marriage would result in any of the consequences you list.
"marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. I know that a small minority of married couples are infertile. But few people who are sterile know they are, and mandatory fertility tests would be too expensive and burdensome for the government to mandate."
I actually think that you can make a fundamentally valid argument that the state sanctions marriage because it is in the state's interests. But, although procreation is one of the ways in which marriage is in the state's interest, it isn't the only one. Marriage institutionalizes and formalizes a long-term relationship, which can be useful for expediting legal functions: visitation rights, tax filings, property holdings, and so forth. Although it draws out conflicts in relationships, it focuses them into regulated channels. It tends to stabilize relationships by institutionalizing the status quo; this can still be advantageous for homosexual couples who choose to adopt or artificially conceive children, as well as for the general social order.
"Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because it will enable gays to live in committed relationships. But gays can live in committed relationships today. People claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but when I looked it up, they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir"
The legal weight of living wills is dubious at best. In many, if not most, cases, they're simply considered an expression of preference, and don't legally empower people to make decisions which they could not otherwise make, or give privileges which would not otherwise be granted. Furthermore, the process of providing the documentation of a living will can be cumbersome. At best, homosexual couples would be forced through hoops that heterosexual couples wouldn't. At worst, as in the case of hospital visitation rights, the added encumbrance could be a substantial difference.
Nooooo Michael that's not what I'm saying...don't think less of me:(...and as I hope I further explained in my post to Tori, I DO NOT AGREE THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION, I was simply saying that it is an argument that some people use (like my source, who I mostly don't agree with). I do not agree with that at all. Like I said some of my arguments I only referrenced because they are out there and I wanted to state them. The majority of what I was writing is not personal at all, and I'm sad that people are taking it that way!
I'll keep it short, because that's my character.
I just feel that we're (California, Arkansas, Florida, Arizona, and really the US as a whole) denying rights to a group that's going to inevitably be legitimatized. I truly believe that majority of the population shares this thought.
And, although it isn't happening now it will happen. Not even in this lifetime, but in this decade.
And to end with Bob Dylan, and quite possibly my favorite lyrics of all time:
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'
Michele, you fail to see two points:
1. Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution, and here we are talking about the former, not the latter.
2. Civil unions, even ones where the partners receive full, equal rights, are insufficient, because marriage establishes kinship (that is -- that you are related) and civil unions do not. It's about how society views you as a couple. If you are married, people know that you are family. If you have a civil union, people know that you are not family.
We need gay marriage to enable gay couples to establish kinship.
'"People who are not married in a church should be considered to be in civil unions? That would be a violation of the First Amendment; you are denying rights to people who do not have religious beliefs. Constitutionally, that is wrong."
gain, I'm not understanding how you can say that denying the right of marriage is constitutionally wrong when it's not even in the constitution?'
Because if you deny something based on someone's religion or lack of religion, it is a violation of the First Amendment.
Plus, you use the word church. You basically said that if people want to be considered married they must get married in a church. So Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Religious people, Jews, and many more can only get civil unions?
Sorry, that is a violation of the First Amendment because you are denying people something based on their religious, or lack of religious beliefs. Plus, some religions would prevent their believers from being married in their church. My mother was Catholic, but the Catholic church would not let my parents get married in the Catholic church because my father is an Episcopal priest and my parents refused to promise that they would raise their children Catholic. This is why the state can marry people.
Marriage: The state recognized union between two people who willingly enter into the bond of kinship
Procreation is not why the government allows marriage!!!! See mnadler's post, he addresses all the points I would.
Monogamous love is different from polygamous 'love'. Marriage is meant to be exclusive for two people. That is why having sex with another person gives your spouse legal grounds for divorce.
Post a Comment