For those who want a legal end to Gay Marriage

[SenorSalsa]

I think you have legal issues you should be addressing with your state and federal legislatures.

The Catholic moral and religious assessment on the issue has long been settled and will never be changed.

Chuck

I know that, and I am personally strongly opposed to gay marriage, however, i believe in the limited government our founders created, and this isnt thier jurisdiction to rule. States technically could rule, but the national government shoud not be able to, constitionally

 

[cecilia97]

I know that, and I am personally strongly opposed to gay marriage, however, i believe in the limited government our founders created, and this isnt thier jurisdiction to rule. States technically could rule, but the national government shoud not be able to, constitionally

Except, for years now, that’s left us with the question about what happens when a gay couple marries in one state and travels/moves to another.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Except, for years now, that’s left us with the question about what happens when a gay couple marries in one state and travels/moves to another.

The Constitution has already solved this problem

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

States have to recognize what happens in other states. It is true for births, weddings, deaths and most any legal circumstance. It is becuase of this, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that you dont need a new birth certificate each time you move to another state

You might say varying laws would cuase havoc, but look at prohibition. Many counties are still dry counties(for instance, Moore County, TN, home of Jack Daniels Distillery). But most of the country is not, and that works out fine. As far as I know, in most of them, you can leave the county, get drunk, come back, and not be arrested for acohol consumption. In some you can even bring the alcohol back.

For gay marriage, you could go to another state, get married, come back, and couldnt be arrested for being married. Getting married could still be illegal, but being could not. That would essentially be a ex post facto law, which is also forbidden by the Constitution.

Simillarly, Some states have the legal driving age at 18, some at 16. As far as i am aware, a 16 yr old with a valid lisence cannot be arrested for underage driving in a state where the age is 18

to another point, why should it even matter to our government who marries who?

 

[bookgirl32]

I know that, and I am personally strongly opposed to gay marriage, however, i believe in the limited government our founders created, and this isnt thier jurisdiction to rule. States technically could rule, but the national government shoud not be able to, constitionally

I see your point, and I used to think the same. But really, shouldn’t we want everyone to do what God revealed to us through the Church as the right thing to do? I’m not saying we shold revolt against the government or anything, but in theory and support, shouldn’t we want it the way God wants it? What’s the problem with that?

 

[Mighty_Q]

Therein lies the problem–State A doesn’t recognize gay marriage, State B does. Couple marries in State B, moves to State A. This has tax and inheritance law problems.

 

[justinthemartyr]

uh…there is no such thing as homosexual marriage, as much as there is no such thing as human-animal marriage. Marriage is something bound by God, not man. It takes two consenting human adults, one male and one female.

 

[cecilia97]

Therein lies the problem–State A doesn’t recognize gay marriage, State B does. Couple marries in State B, moves to State A. This has tax and inheritance law problems.

Inheritance, maybe not so much since you can take care of that with a will. But some people in State A might be upset that the gay couple is married and live down the street from them. States’ sovereignty sort of muddies this issue.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I see your point, and I used to think the same. But really, shouldn’t we want everyone to do what God revealed to us through the Church as the right thing to do? I’m not saying we shold revolt against the government or anything, but in theory and support, shouldn’t we want it the way God wants it? What’s the problem with that?

We should want them to, but it should be becuase they want to, not becuase we forced them to.

Inheritance, maybe not so much since you can take care of that with a will. But some people in State A might be upset that the gay couple is married and live down the street from them. States’ sovereignty sort of muddies this issue.

They would also get upset if two gay people were living together, not legally bonded at all. So unless you plan on outlawing cohabitation, which would cuase some serious issues, not the least of which would be determining between two guys sharing a house, and a couple

 

[bookgirl32]

How would not allowing something be forcing anyone to do anything?

 

[SenorSalsa]

How would not allowing something be forcing anyone to do anything?

Gays should stay unmarried becuase they realize such a marriage is not actually a marriage in God’s eyes, and is not moral. They should not just stay unmarried becuase they cant be married.

If the prior were the case, an unmarried gay would almost definately lead a celibate life

if the later were the case, he would still be sexually active, just without the bonds of marriage

 

[clmowry]

For gay marriage, you could go to another state, get married, come back, and couldnt be arrested for being married. Getting married could still be illegal, but being could not. That would essentially be a ex post facto law, which is also forbidden by the Constitution.

So your position is that constitution ensures that if say Hawaii decides to grant marriages to people of the same sex that a couple who then moves to Florida must be offered the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple in Florida?

Somehow, I do not think this is the case in actual practice.

Chuck

 

[bookgirl32]

Gays should stay unmarried becuase they realize such a marriage is not actually a marriage in God’s eyes, and is not moral. They should not just stay unmarried becuase they cant be married.

If the prior were the case, an unmarried gay would almost definately lead a celibate life

if the later were the case, he would still be sexually active, just without the bonds of marriage

So heap something wrong on top of something else wrong?

So it would be understandable if murderers went ahead and killed people if it wasn’t illegal?

 

[BamaRider]

Do you also want a legal end to all marriage that occur outside of the Catholic Church. A heterosexual marriage by a justice of the peace is no more a sacremental marriage than a homosexual one.

And the basis of the argument seems to generally be a homosexual marriage is not a true marriage becuase of the “guidelines” of the Sacrament.

Not to mention a law would not stop homosexual couples, all it would do is stop them from recieving the financial benifits that come with a government(not church) recognized marraige. Tax breaks, pensions, social security, etc.

The couple may spend 50 years together, married or not. But when one dies, the other gets nothing, becuase legally, he has no connection to the deceased.

14th ammendment to the Constitution-“Equal Protection Under The Law”

So this means you’re for same sex marriage?

Here’s all ya gotta know. As Catholics we KNOW what marriage is. Most of America know what a marriage is-A man and woman. We don’t need anyone redefining what makes a marriage.

Today some progressive tell us, “But Guy, we can’t impose our values on society, people should be free to be with who they want.” I don’t have a problem with that, just don’t define that as a marriage. After accomodating the gay community, what are we gonna tell the next Jerry Springer alumni that trot out and say, “marriage is really 2 guys, and 1 girl, or any combination of 3” See where this goes?

No sir, marriage is a man and a woman, and I’d be for a amendment to make sure. Just my :twocents:

 

[SenorSalsa]

So your position is that constitution ensures that if say Hawaii decides to grant marriages to people of the same sex that a couple who then moves to Florida must be offered the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple in Florida?

Somehow, I do not think this is the case in actual practice.

Chuck

They may not want it to be the case in actual practice, but they will do it when the Supreme Court tells them they have to. Kinda like with segregation.

So heap something wrong on top of something else wrong?

So it would be understandable if murderers went ahead and killed people if it wasn’t illegal?

as i said before, gay marraige doesnt directly take away another person’s rights, as murder, rape, and other crimes do. Thats why they are illegal

Today some progressive tell us, “But Guy, we can’t impose our values on society, people should be free to be with who they want.” I don’t have a problem with that, just don’t define that as a marriage.

No sir, marriage is a man and a woman, and I’d be for a amendment to make sure. Just my :twocents:

as long as the two are legally equals, i wouldnt care if it had a different word. However as of right now, civil unions such as Vermont has have no Federal recognition, and thus none of the federal benefits marraige has.

All amendments to the constitution(except for prohibition, which was cancelled anyways) are in the general form of “people have the right to _____” Putting in an amendment in the general form of “[some] people do NOT have the right to ______” seems like the opening of a dangerous can of worms.suddenly a list of ammendments, in a document securing our rights from the Government, is taking them away from some. Look even at murder. Murder has been, is and will always be illegal in the United States. But it is not expressly forbiddin in the Constitution.

 

[bookgirl32]

as i said before, gay marraige doesnt directly take away another person’s rights, as murder, rape, and other crimes do. Thats why they are illegal

I’ve heard the argument that it doesn’t hurt anyone else. It does though, it hurts God, which should be our major reason for opposing it.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I’ve heard the argument that it doesn’t hurt anyone else. It does though, it hurts God, which should be our major reason for opposing it.

So do you want to makin lying illegal? Businesses being open on Sunday? We could go 1984 and have thought police, to make sure nobody has impure thoughts.

While it is true that they hurt God, it doesnt mean it should be made law. God gave us free will so that we could make choices. So that not everything we did was becuase it was what he wanted. We are people, not puppets

 

[bookgirl32]

So do you want to makin lying illegal? Businesses being open on Sunday? We could go 1984 and have thought police, to make sure nobody has impure thoughts.

While it is true that they hurt God, it doesnt mean it should be made law. God gave us free will so that we could make choices. So that not everything we did was becuase it was what he wanted. We are people, not puppets

No, we couldn’t make lying illegal. But marriage is not illegal. That’s the point, it would be changing the law for everyone to fit one group of people.

 

[SenorSalsa]

No, we couldn’t make lying illegal. But marriage is not illegal. That’s the point, it would be changing the law for everyone to fit one group of people.

Sorta like the 13,14, and 15 ammendments for Slaves
the Women’s rights period
the Civil Rights era in the 60s
the workers in the 1920s

laws are generally made to include those who were unconstitionally excluded. Not the other way around

 

[bookgirl32]

Sorta like the 13,14, and 15 ammendments for Slaves
the Women’s rights period
the Civil Rights era in the 60s
the workers in the 1920s

laws are generally made to include those who were unconstitionally excluded. Not the other way around

Homosexually oriented people are not a race, nor a gender, and they are NOT denied the right to marriage.

You’re kind of starting to sound like you think God is a democracy.

I happen to think that homosexual behavior is disordered behavior. I could make a case that it does effect others in that it contributes to the degeneration of the “culture of life” that the church supports when it is supported in today’s culture, media, and possibly government. I however am not trying to make that case. I do NOT look at gay people as “disordered”, or as anything other than what God made them, I’m only looking at the behavior. If you really do believe that it is not what God intended, why are you so forcefully fighting for it?

 

[SenorSalsa]

Homosexually oriented people are not a race, nor a gender, and they are NOT denied the right to marriage.

You’re kind of starting to sound like you think God is a democracy.

I happen to think that homosexual behavior is disordered behavior. I could make a case that it does effect others in that it contributes to the degeneration of the “culture of life” that the church supports when it is supported in today’s culture, media, and possibly government. I however am not trying to make that case. I do NOT look at gay people as “disordered”, or as anything other than what God made them, I’m only looking at the behavior. If you really do believe that it is not what God intended, why are you so forcefully fighting for it?

Becuase this country was founded on the principles of a limited government, and we have seemed to forget that. I realize God is not a democracy, but the US is. And thus, the law is as the majority say it is, regardless of if it is “right” or not.

Just as a frame of refrence i also support the Supreme Court’s decision to allow flag burning. I support the right of Media to print information that could slow US operations. I support the right of the KKK to assemble.

However i would not burn a flag, print national security information, or become a Klansman.

They can do it becuase the Constitution does not forbid it. And if it isnt expressly forbidden, than it is the right of the people.

You should read the poem “First they came…” it pretty much embodies why i fight as hard as I do