|
|
Post by HR2X on Mar 28, 2013 8:33:58 GMT -5
Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to determine the legality of marriage? Do you support the federal government legalising it, or do you support it being an issue for the states to decide under the 10th Amendment? I would've thought you would support the latter, as an advocate of the Constitution. I believe he's saying that it's up to the states, not the federal government. I have the feeling the SCOTUS will tell us exactly that when they reach their verdict. Gay marriage cannot be legalized through the Federal government. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 28, 2013 9:22:23 GMT -5
There's no reason for government to be involved in defining marriage whatsoever. Under freedom of association, two individuals, gay or straight, should be able to find a church and get married. Therein lies the rub. Marriage is both a legal state and a sacrament offered by the church. However, societally, we've conflated the two. When people get married in church they sign the legal documents required to have their marriage recognized by the state at the same time. There's a legal standing there that you can't just get rid of. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Mar 28, 2013 9:51:41 GMT -5
I think the government is so deeply entrenched in marriage there is no getting them out of it. Marriage as a whole is different socially and legally than it was. I don't think they can keep handing this one off to the states. The way marriage is handled needs to be radically altered one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 28, 2013 9:57:44 GMT -5
I think the government is so deeply entrenched in marriage there is no getting them out of it. Marriage as a whole is different socially and legally than it was. I don't think they can keep handing this one off to the states. The way marriage is handled needs to be radically altered one way or another. The feds do not need to be entrenched I think. States do, but I'm not sure the feds do. If I am married my wife/husband has a legal claim to my property if I die as well as certain legal rights on making end of life decisions, custody of any children, etc.... Unless I'm terribly mistaken the laws governing all of those things are set at the state level, not the federal level. So the state has a stake in defining who can and cannot be legally married, but I don't know that the feds do. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Mar 28, 2013 10:02:36 GMT -5
I think the government is so deeply entrenched in marriage there is no getting them out of it. Marriage as a whole is different socially and legally than it was. I don't think they can keep handing this one off to the states. The way marriage is handled needs to be radically altered one way or another. The feds do not need to be entrenched I think. States do, but I'm not sure the feds do. If I am married my wife/husband has a legal claim to my property if I die as well as certain legal rights on making end of life decisions, custody of any children, etc.... Unless I'm terribly mistaken the laws governing all of those things are set at the state level, not the federal level. So the state has a stake in defining who can and cannot be legally married, but I don't know that the feds do. Doesn't the fed have hands in marriage with citizenship, and with the IRS? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:39:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 10:41:49 GMT -5
Honestly this should have never been a problem WHO GIVES A  !!!!! This is what costs Mitt some votes, I don't know why we ever needed to interfere in it, it has no affect on the non gays so why ever make it illegal |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 28, 2013 12:07:56 GMT -5
The feds do not need to be entrenched I think. States do, but I'm not sure the feds do. If I am married my wife/husband has a legal claim to my property if I die as well as certain legal rights on making end of life decisions, custody of any children, etc.... Unless I'm terribly mistaken the laws governing all of those things are set at the state level, not the federal level. So the state has a stake in defining who can and cannot be legally married, but I don't know that the feds do. Doesn't the fed have hands in marriage with citizenship, and with the IRS? Yes and no. They see what a person's marriage status is of course, but the legality of those marriages is still on the states is it not? Some states let people get married when they're 16 or 17. Other states don't. The feds may recognize that someone is legally married, but they do so on the basis that some state recognizes that person is legally married. |
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Mar 28, 2013 12:38:57 GMT -5
Anyone see any way that the Court decides to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA? To me, that's a pretty obvious thing to strike down, and it appeared as though they were leaning toward that decision.
I know that only getting DOMA off the books isn't exactly what the LBGT community hoped to accomplish here, but it's, at the very least, a nice start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Mar 28, 2013 12:58:55 GMT -5
Do you support the federal government legalising it, or do you support it being an issue for the states to decide under the 10th Amendment? I would've thought you would support the latter, as an advocate of the Constitution. I believe he's saying that it's up to the states, not the federal government. I have the feeling the SCOTUS will tell us exactly that when they reach their verdict. Gay marriage cannot be legalized through the Federal government. Well surely that clashes with a Libertarian belief in individual liberties, such as the right to get married? |
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Mar 28, 2013 13:41:17 GMT -5
This is one of those topics I just don't give crapabout gay or straight. I just can't believe so much time and air has been spent on this topic for many years now. It's going to happen eventually, so they should just get it over with. I don't know if I can take another generation of this being a prominent topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 28, 2013 14:01:32 GMT -5
I believe he's saying that it's up to the states, not the federal government. I have the feeling the SCOTUS will tell us exactly that when they reach their verdict. Gay marriage cannot be legalized through the Federal government. Well surely that clashes with a Libertarian belief in individual liberties, such as the right to get married? There is no "right to get married." You, as a free, peaceful human being, have the right to enter into a private contract with whomever you choose, provided that there is not force or coercion involved. Marriage should be a contract and absolutely nothing more. Every marriage should have the ability to define its own boundaries based on the terms of said contract. The government should have absolutely no right to tell you who you can enter into a contract with. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 28, 2013 14:22:40 GMT -5
Doesn't the fed have hands in marriage with citizenship, and with the IRS? Yes and no. They see what a person's marriage status is of course, but the legality of those marriages is still on the states is it not? Some states let people get married when they're 16 or 17. Other states don't. The feds may recognize that someone is legally married, but they do so on the basis that some state recognizes that person is legally married. The federal government does have a hand in marriage with citizenship and the IRS. Marriage is legal in Iowa yet gay people in Iowa cannot file joint federal taxes. If your spouse is not a citizen your marriage will do nothing since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. They say they've been trying to relax the standards for gay immigrants but it's probably just talk. The federal government recognizes heterosexual marriages from age 16 to 116. Any age as long as it is a straight couple. |
|
|
|
Post by Thick Justice on Mar 28, 2013 14:55:42 GMT -5
The main reason why people are against it is religion. Christians: Its a sin to be gay and marriage is sacred so they shouldn't be allowed.
However according to them its a sin to be athiest, yet I don't see you rebelling them allowing athiests to get married.
The way I see it is this is just like the wars hundreds of years ago between the christian groups. Which is just like african americans rights. Which is just like women's rights. The world is always trying to keep someone down.
I am also fine with polygamists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 28, 2013 15:21:39 GMT -5
Well surely that clashes with a Libertarian belief in individual liberties, such as the right to get married? There is no "right to get married." You, as a free, peaceful human being, have the right to enter into a private contract with whomever you choose, provided that there is not force or coercion involved. Marriage should be a contract and absolutely nothing more. Every marriage should have the ability to define its own boundaries based on the terms of said contract. The government should have absolutely no right to tell you who you can enter into a contract with. Well, if you are looking at marriage strictly as a legal contract, then government has lots of authority to regulate legal contracts. I would argue that is one of the jobs of government is to make laws regulating legal contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 28, 2013 21:14:32 GMT -5
There is no "right to get married." You, as a free, peaceful human being, have the right to enter into a private contract with whomever you choose, provided that there is not force or coercion involved. Marriage should be a contract and absolutely nothing more. Every marriage should have the ability to define its own boundaries based on the terms of said contract. The government should have absolutely no right to tell you who you can enter into a contract with. Well, if you are looking at marriage strictly as a legal contract, then government has lots of authority to regulate legal contracts. I would argue that is one of the jobs of government is to make laws regulating legal contracts. The government's only job, when it comes to contracts, is to ensure that the terms are met. Not to decide who can be involved. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:39:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 21:17:16 GMT -5
Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to determine the legality of marriage? this the government should stay out of it. once they take over who can marry who, then whats next they keep edging their ways into our life, little by little. i don't support gay marriage but to be honest,i couldn't care less what people do with their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 29, 2013 6:39:52 GMT -5
Well, if you are looking at marriage strictly as a legal contract, then government has lots of authority to regulate legal contracts. I would argue that is one of the jobs of government is to make laws regulating legal contracts. The government's only job, when it comes to contracts, is to ensure that the terms are met. Not to decide who can be involved. Completely disagree. Who decides whether the parties involved are actually mentally competent or of legal age to enter into said contract? Who decides if someone entered into a contract by force or fraud? This is something the government has every right to be involved in. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 23:39:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 17:55:28 GMT -5
The main reason why people are against it is religion. Christians: Its a sin to be gay and marriage is sacred so they shouldn't be allowed. However according to them its a sin to be athiest, yet I don't see you rebelling them allowing athiests to get married. The way I see it is this is just like the wars hundreds of years ago between the christian groups. Which is just like african americans rights. Which is just like women's rights. The world is always trying to keep someone down. I am also fine with polygamists. I'm Catholic, however I don't believe the Bible says it's a sin to be gay. "Abomination" simply meant, in those days, unclean. However, I don't see that as something that sends you straight to hell. God loves all. There is no asterisk there in the Bible that says "except gays." Even if you don't believe in him, God still loves you. My biggest pet peeve is how people pick and choose which part of the Bible they wish to enforce and which part they wish to ignore. Believe it not, the Bible considers many routine things an "abomination"; things some of us to every day. These are other things the Bible bans. The eating of ham. (Leviticus 11:7-8) Having a rounded haircut. (Leviticus 19:27) Swearing at your parents is punishable by death. (Exodus 21:17) Tattoos. (Leviticus 19:28) Women speaking in Church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) Eating shellfish. (Deuteronomy 14:9-10) Mixing fabrics. (Leviticus 19:19) So, I hope all good, Bible-abiding politicians enact laws immediately that ban the eating of shellfish in America. I mean, they can cite the Bible! I'm a good Catholic, but one must be rational and logical and understand that the Bible was written by men of their time. God loves all. If we "sin" we can make up for it. |
|
gwtpunk
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 20, 2011 12:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,898
|
Post by gwtpunk on Mar 29, 2013 18:02:19 GMT -5
They made a great point today....some people were trying to say that the basis for marriage is to produce children and that gay people can't conceive children. If that is the case, then nobody over the age of 55 should be legally allowed to get married, people who are infertile should be prevented from getting married, and couples who do not want children should be prevented from getting married. And anyone using the bible as a reason.....not everyone is religious, and not everyone follows the bible. So why should those people be forced to live by the backwards rules of somebody else's religion? Anybody who is not gay and somehow believes that their lives are going to be affected if gay people start getting married are either misinformed, hate filled, or just plain out of touch. Just go on living your life and doing the things you do and if gay people are getting married right now it doesn't affect them in one bit. This whole issue is mind boggling to me and I can't even comprehend people who are against gay marriage. ing spot on. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by morgan on Apr 12, 2013 21:41:26 GMT -5
Marriage is a fundamental right. The state may not infringe upon a fundamental right unless it has a compelling interest in doing so and the means used are necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.
The state does not have a compelling interest in prohibiting an individual from getting married (engaging in a fundamental right) based on the gender of his/her intended spouse.
A state prohibition on same sex marriages violates both the substantive due process clause and the equal protection clause.
|
|
