L
Leela
Guest
No, the burden of proof is not on me. In the Church perhaps, but not legally. Marriage is a right. There must be good reason to deny it to certain groups.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
ERose
Guest
Even though I agree with the ruling I have to disagree with the judge making this claim. Tell me what amendment in the Constitution that says that marriage is a right. Where in the Constitution can I find this? The answer is that it is not there. Judges make mistakes and have agendas we all know that. But this is the difference between conservatives and liberals is it not? Conservatives believe that the Constitution should be read as it is written, while liberals believe in altering the intent of the Constitution to meet the current situation.Nope. It’s a right. The Supreme Court has specifically said so.
The Fourteenth Amendment was used in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal. Via Wikipedia:
“The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
As I have said many times the US Constitution is a wise and living document and in it’s wisdom, the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of ALL people.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Our rights are found in the Constitution and marriage is not one of them.
I do like the post though. It means that you are thinking and doing research and that I appreciate. Good night Leela.
K
kenofken
Guest
Whether you realize it or not, granting ancient tradition an absolute presumption of legitimacy means you’re also arguing in favor of slavery AND against the founding of our own country.Leela, I’d like for you to answer my question, before you start asking a bunch of your own. I’ve copied & pasted it from a previous message that you ignored:
If one is going to change a law that has been in existence for centuries…one has to be able to show that the change will benefit society in general. Please show me how changing the laws on marriage to include homosexuals…will benefit society. This proof has to come from the small minority who want to do the changing. The burden of proof is on you.
HOW WILL GAY “MARRIAGE” BENEFIT SOCIETY??
Emancipation of slaves in this country was carried out at an enormous cost in lives and without conclusive proof that ending this centuries old institution would prove good for the wider society. Certainly no studies were carried out that would meet your absurdly difficult standard of proof (ie proove to me, in advance, that nothing bad will ever happen from this change). Ending slavery, for all of its self-evident merits of morality, in fact created considerable problems. In the short run, it devastated the economy of half of the United States and created vast social upheaval, including the release of some 4 million people who had no real way to make a living. Your argument would seem to insist that we had no business tampering with an ancient institution and risking the chaos that might (and did) follow.
The very creation of this country rashly overturned another ancient institution: the divine right of kings. This was spitting in the eye of that natural order of things at a level far more fundamental than gay marriage. There was NO proof that the benefits to society would outweight the cost. In fact there was plenty of historical examples which said the end result would be nothing more than bloody anarchy. Our founders certainly didn’t meet your burden of proof and should have surrendered themselves to the King, prayed for a clean hanging and had the whole matter referred to Parliament for proper study…
E
ERose
Guest
I have to give you credit. This is probably the best “I don’t know” post I have ever read. The problem with your arguments that you have proposed is that no one’s rights are being violated. Gays are not attacked in the streets. They are not being regulated to **** poor jobs. They have the same opportunities you and I have. There are gays in every walk of life who are successful. They are not being held back. I know you want to believe that they are are but quite honestly that is just not true. You have no proof of this whatsoever or you would have already shown it.Whether you realize it or not, granting ancient tradition an absolute presumption of legitimacy means you’re also arguing in favor of slavery AND against the founding of our own country.
Emancipation of slaves in this country was carried out at an enormous cost in lives and without conclusive proof that ending this centuries old institution would prove good for the wider society. Certainly no studies were carried out that would meet your absurdly difficult standard of proof (ie proove to me, in advance, that nothing bad will ever happen from this change). Ending slavery, for all of its self-evident merits of morality, in fact created considerable problems. In the short run, it devastated the economy of half of the United States and created vast social upheaval, including the release of some 4 million people who had no real way to make a living. Your argument would seem to insist that we had no business tampering with an ancient institution and risking the chaos that might (and did) follow.
The very creation of this country rashly overturned another ancient institution: the divine right of kings. This was spitting in the eye of that natural order of things at a level far more fundamental than gay marriage. There was NO proof that the benefits to society would outweight the cost. In fact there was plenty of historical examples which said the end result would be nothing more than bloody anarchy. Our founders certainly didn’t meet your burden of proof and should have surrendered themselves to the King, prayed for a clean hanging and had the whole matter referred to Parliament for proper study…
The FBI states the following statistics for hate crimes in the US
An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:
■52.1 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
■18.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
■15.3 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
■13.5 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
■1.0 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability.
In 2006 1472 hate crimes occurred against sexual orientation. 2% of those were against heterosexuals specifically so that means the number is really about 1442 out of about 2.9million potential gay population. That means only about .05% per year estimated. Compare that number with the 11% for lesbians and 15% of gay men that have been victims of domestic violence by their gay partner. The numbers are just not there to support your claims. Where are gays being discriminated against on such a large scale as you are claiming?
H
Holly3278
Guest
Just in case nobody has bothered to look or to link to this, Catholic Answers has a Special Report on gay “marriage” which you can find here:
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
K
kenofken
Guest
Hate crimes statistics are useful, but a very narrow view of how a minority population really experiences day to day problems. In many areas, one still is at risk of a beating, or worse, by being gay. There are well documented incidents of gays being murdered, usually in exceptionally brutal ways - ie Matthew Shepherd. Not all hate crimes are reported either. Finally, one of the reasons gays are not attacked more often is that many of them have stopped trying to live in large swaths of the country. They tend to congregate in urban areas where their majority status or large numbers and cosmopolitan attitudes. make them safe.I have to give you credit. This is probably the best “I don’t know” post I have ever read. The problem with your arguments that you have proposed is that no one’s rights are being violated. Gays are not attacked in the streets. They are not being regulated to **** poor jobs. They have the same opportunities you and I have. There are gays in every walk of life who are successful. They are not being held back. I know you want to believe that they are are but quite honestly that is just not true. You have no proof of this whatsoever or you would have already shown it.
The FBI states the following statistics for hate crimes in the US
An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:
■52.1 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
■18.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
■15.3 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
■13.5 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
■1.0 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability.
In 2006 1472 hate crimes occurred against sexual orientation. 2% of those were against heterosexuals specifically so that means the number is really about 1442 out of about 2.9million potential gay population. That means only about .05% per year estimated. Compare that number with the 11% for lesbians and 15% of gay men that have been victims of domestic violence by their gay partner. The numbers are just not there to support your claims. Where are gays being discriminated against on such a large scale as you are claiming?
That aside, a gay person today, is on average relatively physically safe. But there’s a wide gap between the freedom from being killed on sight to full “personhood” in a society.
Hate crimes don’t count the young guy who commits suicide after years of torment in school. They don’t count the stress of years of paranoia for the career military officer who stands to lose their career despite exemplary service because some vindictive colleague outs them. They don’t count the indignity of being turned away from the hospital where your partner of 30 years is dying because your husband’s alienated homophobic family wants to rub it in your face. It doesnt count the lack of legal protections for a hundred daily details that hetero married couples take for granted. The dozen or so legal documents one must draw up just to form a patchwork legal partnership that still leaves your loved one without many protections and which take hours of explanation and phone calls to lawyers when you’re trying to convince someone that your partner is not just some casual drinking buddy.
The fact that many gays are in high-earning professions also doesn’t tell the whole story. It puts them in a much better position than say, black Americans in inner cities. But money itself won’t buy you dignity or safety. Europe’s Jews did very well for themselves from about the middle ages onward, but that never stopped the persecution or the laws that reminded them of second class citizenship in a million little ways.
During the centuries of Protestant oppression of Catholics in Ireland, on any given day, Catholics were not being hunted in the streets. There certainly was that at times, but the real oppression came in the form of dozens of laws which barred them from adopting children, running their own schools, having any real standing before courts etc.
It’s easy to proclaim that gays have nothign to gripe about because we don’t have to walk in their shoes. If the militant atheists took over tomorrow and decided they weren’t going to allow legal marriage among Catholics but your physical and material comfort would be protected, would you be content with that?
E
edwest2
Guest
There is no such thing as gay marriage. And if marriage is a right, then why do some insist that the government get out of “the marriage business.”? No one can call the government coercive when that same group appeals to the government for a right not in existence. And Christians are not the only group that have good reasons.No, the burden of proof is not on me. In the Church perhaps, but not legally. Marriage is a right. There must be good reason to deny it to certain groups.
jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
God bless,
Ed
C
CradleCath
Guest
Your answer is unbelievable. You equate the fact that gays want their disordered sexual relationships, somehow made respectable by being called “marriage”…to freeing slaves, people who were bought & sold like cattle, & a new country breaking free from a monarchy that wanted to tax them excessively, a monarch that would not let them practice freedom of religion.Whether you realize it or not, granting ancient tradition an absolute presumption of legitimacy means you’re also arguing in favor of slavery AND against the founding of our own country.
Emancipation of slaves in this country was carried out at an enormous cost in lives and without conclusive proof that ending this centuries old institution would prove good for the wider society. Certainly no studies were carried out that would meet your absurdly difficult standard of proof (ie proove to me, in advance, that nothing bad will ever happen from this change). Ending slavery, for all of its self-evident merits of morality, in fact created considerable problems. In the short run, it devastated the economy of half of the United States and created vast social upheaval, including the release of some 4 million people who had no real way to make a living. Your argument would seem to insist that we had no business tampering with an ancient institution and risking the chaos that might (and did) follow.
The very creation of this country rashly overturned another ancient institution: the divine right of kings. This was spitting in the eye of that natural order of things at a level far more fundamental than gay marriage. There was NO proof that the benefits to society would outweight the cost. In fact there was plenty of historical examples which said the end result would be nothing more than bloody anarchy. Our founders certainly didn’t meet your burden of proof and should have surrendered themselves to the King, prayed for a clean hanging and had the whole matter referred to Parliament for proper study…
This is the most narcissistic post I’ve seen on these boards, yet.
Hopefully you do realize that gay “marriage” would change NOTHING in the life of practicing homosexuals. They are already having sex with someone that they call their “partner”. I hear all of this STUFF about allowing one gay man to go into the hospital room of his lover, I hear all kinds of things about inheritance, about insurance, etc., etc. Any & all of these difficulties could be taken care of by spending an hour in an attorney’s office.
The bottom line is, gay’s want a label that they believe will give them respectibility, make them feel good about gay sex. First, they SAID that they just wanted to be “left alone”. That wasn’t really what they wanted, as they started flaunting their disordered sexuality in public…in parades, in parks, in malls. That didn’t do it, either. Now, they are certain that if they can just put the label of marriage on their sexual affairs…they will be happy. They will feel respectable, they will feel valued. Don’t you realize that the laws of God are written on the hearts of man. There is a REASON that we feel guilty, that we feel shame. When we are engaging in behavior that is contrary to Moral Law, to God’s purpose for our sexual organs…we’re SUPPOSED to feel shame. Nothing will ever be enough for practicing homosexuals. Nothing except celibacy will ever make gays feel good about themselves.
Now, if you can give me a good reason why the laws that govern marriage, that insist that this designation can only be given to one man who is marrying one woman, should be stricken from our judicial system. Please do
E
ERose
Guest
So what you are saying that gays have to put up with same **** everyone else has to put up with. I knew that already. The only people I truly see isolating gays from society are those people who claim to be fighting for their rights. Normal people don’t. I have worked with gays and have had a couple of my friends that lived that lifestyle. And the facts are that as long as they worked hard like everyone else and treated others around them with respect they were treated with respect. That is the way it is with everyone else. You talk about school and gays getting picked on, well you know what everyone got picked on at one time or another. Heck I got picked on probably more than my fair share because I was a poor kid, but you know what you have to get over it, grow from it, and move on.Hate crimes statistics are useful, but a very narrow view of how a minority population really experiences day to day problems. In many areas, one still is at risk of a beating, or worse, by being gay. There are well documented incidents of gays being murdered, usually in exceptionally brutal ways - ie Matthew Shepherd. Not all hate crimes are reported either. Finally, one of the reasons gays are not attacked more often is that many of them have stopped trying to live in large swaths of the country. They tend to congregate in urban areas where their majority status or large numbers and cosmopolitan attitudes. make them safe.
That aside, a gay person today, is on average relatively physically safe. But there’s a wide gap between the freedom from being killed on sight to full “personhood” in a society.
Hate crimes don’t count the young guy who commits suicide after years of torment in school. They don’t count the stress of years of paranoia for the career military officer who stands to lose their career despite exemplary service because some vindictive colleague outs them. They don’t count the indignity of being turned away from the hospital where your partner of 30 years is dying because your husband’s alienated homophobic family wants to rub it in your face. It doesnt count the lack of legal protections for a hundred daily details that hetero married couples take for granted. The dozen or so legal documents one must draw up just to form a patchwork legal partnership that still leaves your loved one without many protections and which take hours of explanation and phone calls to lawyers when you’re trying to convince someone that your partner is not just some casual drinking buddy.
The fact that many gays are in high-earning professions also doesn’t tell the whole story. It puts them in a much better position than say, black Americans in inner cities. But money itself won’t buy you dignity or safety. Europe’s Jews did very well for themselves from about the middle ages onward, but that never stopped the persecution or the laws that reminded them of second class citizenship in a million little ways.
During the centuries of Protestant oppression of Catholics in Ireland, on any given day, Catholics were not being hunted in the streets. There certainly was that at times, but the real oppression came in the form of dozens of laws which barred them from adopting children, running their own schools, having any real standing before courts etc.
It’s easy to proclaim that gays have nothign to gripe about because we don’t have to walk in their shoes. If the militant atheists took over tomorrow and decided they weren’t going to allow legal marriage among Catholics but your physical and material comfort would be protected, would you be content with that?
We also all have our own problems and sufferings or as St. Paul calls “Thorns in your side”. Some of us have thorns worse than others. I have been dealing with a major problem in my life for 25 years that I hope I finally have overcomed. There are others out there that are dealing with mental and physical handicaps, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, sex addiction, etc. That is life.
The facts are no body really cares what is in our closets. The only time they start caring is when the mold in the person’s closet starts getting rubbed in their faces. There are all kinks of people out there that live various lifestyles where it is swinging, or wearing diapers and being treated like a baby, or get into S&M, or whatever. That is the lifestyles that they choose. These people are not running around wanting laws changed for them. The facts show that the far majority of gays don’t even care and are not going to take advantage of marriage if they allowed to do so. The countries that have allowed gay marriage there has been only 4-7% of gays that have gotten married.
Also it has been shown that where gay marriage has been allowed it hasn’t helped the gay community whatsoever. Statistics have shown that the gay lifestyle is not a healthy lifestyle with a much lower life expectancy, higher suicide rate, higher domestic abuse rate, etc. than the average person. These are not things caused by other people doing things to them but rather the things they are doing to themselves. I do not think we should support, advocate, and push people to live lifestyles that are self destructive. That is charity. Allowing them to abuse and kill themselves is just turning the blind eye.
I find it interesting that social liberals are leading the charge to make alcohol and tobacco illegal siting that it is for the benefit of the people that do them and those that live with them. But when it comes to the gay lifestyle, which is just as destructive if not more destructive, social liberals advocate and even encourage this type of lifestyle.
E
ERose
Guest
You know what I find interesting Ed is that Elena Kagan, our new liberal Supreme Court Judge was asked the question if marriage is a constitutional right. She said no it is not. Also I haven’t seen the amendment in the constitution yet that shows marriage is a constitutional right. I am still waiting Leela.There is no such thing as gay marriage. And if marriage is a right, then why do some insist that the government get out of “the marriage business.”? No one can call the government coercive when that same group appeals to the government for a right not in existence. And Christians are not the only group that have good reasons.
jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
God bless,
Ed
J
John21652
Guest
Cradlecath, kenofken’s answer is distinctly disengenuous. Slavery was an aberation in American and English affairs. A Virginia Act of 1662 declared that *“all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother,” *thus establishing the rule in all the slaveholding areas of British America. Slavery was never the norm before this. Slavery was institutionalised through positive law, which came from local and parochial standards and conventions and vested interests. It was not universal. No such positivist law existed in England either. Slavery was eventually abolished because of Natural Law arguments which overcame the positivist law, which was proved to be immoral according to those Natural Law arguments. A prime example is an argument America’s own Thomas Jefferson used in a 1770 case (Howell v Netherland) -Your answer is unbelievable. You equate the fact that gays want their disordered sexual relationships, somehow made respectable by being called “marriage”…to freeing slaves, people who were bought & sold like cattle, & a new country breaking free from a monarchy that wanted to tax them excessively, a monarch that would not let them practice freedom of religion.
This is the most narcissistic post I’ve seen on these boards, yet.
Hopefully you do realize that gay “marriage” would change NOTHING in the life of practicing homosexuals. They are already having sex with someone that they call their “partner”. I hear all of this STUFF about allowing one gay man to go into the hospital room of his lover, I hear all kinds of things about inheritance, about insurance, etc., etc. Any & all of these difficulties could be taken care of by spending an hour in an attorney’s office.
The bottom line is, gay’s want a label that they believe will give them respectibility, make them feel good about gay sex. First, they SAID that they just wanted to be “left alone”. That wasn’t really what they wanted, as they started flaunting their disordered sexuality in public…in parades, in parks, in malls. That didn’t do it, either. Now, they are certain that if they can just put the label of marriage on their sexual affairs…they will be happy. They will feel respectable, they will feel valued. Don’t you realize that the laws of God are written on the hearts of man. There is a REASON that we feel guilty, that we feel shame. When we are engaging in behavior that is contrary to Moral Law, to God’s purpose for our sexual organs…we’re SUPPOSED to feel shame. Nothing will ever be enough for practicing homosexuals. Nothing except celibacy will ever make gays feel good about themselves.
Now, if you can give me a good reason why the laws that govern marriage, that insist that this designation can only be given to one man who is marrying one woman, should be stricken from our judicial system. Please do
A little later, in England, was the noted Somerset case of 1772. In that case, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, in the Court of King’s Bench, held that slavery was indeed in violation of the law of nature, and that it took positive man-made law to impose slavery upon society and upon individuals. Lord Mansfield found no such positive law existing in England in 1772. His decision ultimately resulted in recognition of freedom for some 15,000 former slaves living in England and Wales. Mansfield said -I suppose it will not be pretended that the mother being a servant,
the child would be a servant also under the law of nature, without
any particular provision in the act. Under the law of nature, all
men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to
his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it
at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and it is
given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own
sustenance. The reducing the mother to servitude was a violation
of the law of nature: surely then the same law cannot prescribe a
continuance of the violation to her issue, and that too without
end.
So slavery was found, according to Natural Law theory, to be so odious that nothing could support it other than man made, positive law. In other words, the conventions of slavery were not universal, were disordered and could only be supported when mankind introduced laws which went against the very nature of man himself. It can be said with confidence that slavery in the Americas was an aberation, because most colonies had charters which stated that no laws enacted in the colonies could be at odds with English law. The aberation was promulgated by positive law which does not have reason, or morality, as its base, but which panders to expedience and vested interests.The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.
Today, we see the homosexual lobby and individuals like kenofken seeking to have positive laws enacted which would overturn the standard of morality which is the Natural Law. Homosexual behaviour is clearly not universal, is disordered and against the very normative nature of humanity, yet those with a vested interest and their own conventions are trying to usurp the very reasoning which overturned slavery. They are using the same arguments and tactics as the pro-slavers. Indeed, kenofken in an earlier post described the natural Law as “bunk”. Thus, kenofken is being disengenuous and totally contradictory when he uses slavery as an analogy to argue for the introduction of homosexual marriage.
L
Leela
Guest
Amendment to the Constitution? As far as I know, the word “marriage” appears no where whatsoever in the Constitution, so you’ll be waiting a very long time. Marriage is a human right, not a Federal Constitutional right.You know what I find interesting Ed is that Elena Kagan, our new liberal Supreme Court Judge was asked the question if marriage is a constitutional right. She said no it is not. Also I haven’t seen the amendment in the constitution yet that shows marriage is a constitutional right. I am still waiting Leela.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Not even remotely. Marriage is ordered to two ends, one of which is impossible for homosexual couples.Amendment to the Constitution? As far as I know, the word “marriage” appears no where whatsoever in the Constitution, so you’ll be waiting a very long time. Marriage is a human right, not a Federal Constitutional right.
L
Leela
Guest
That is the Catholic view on the meaning of marriage and you are welcome to it. The Church has every right to only perform ceremonies and recognize marriages that reflect its view of marriage, but the state has no interest in protecting a Catholic view of marriage. The state rather has an interest in protecting individual human rights. To the extent that marriage is a civil institution rather than a religious one, the state has a duty to protect everyone’s equal right to participate in it.Not even remotely. Marriage is ordered to two ends, one of which is impossible for homosexual couples.
Perhaps it would be best to distinguish religious and civil marriage as separate institutions. From the point of view of the government, marriage is an economic and legal institution. It is this aspect of marriage rather than any religious understanding that is a civil right.
It will become important for Catholics to make such a distinction as same sex marriage becomes more widespread throught the country in years to come.
E
ERose
Guest
At least we are making headway. Show to me how marriage is a human right when you have to buy a license from the government to get married?Amendment to the Constitution? As far as I know, the word “marriage” appears no where whatsoever in the Constitution, so you’ll be waiting a very long time. Marriage is a human right, not a Federal Constitutional right.
E
ERose
Guest
Leela,That is the Catholic view on the meaning of marriage and you are welcome to it. The Church has every right to only perform ceremonies and recognize marriages that reflect its view of marriage, but the state has no interest in protecting a Catholic view of marriage. The state rather has an interest in protecting individual human rights. To the extent that marriage is a civil institution rather than a religious one, the state has a duty to protect everyone’s equal right to participate in it.
Perhaps it would be best to distinguish religious and civil marriage as separate institutions. From the point of view of the government, marriage is an economic and legal institution. It is this aspect of marriage rather than any religious understanding that is a civil right.
It will become important for Catholics to make such a distinction as same sex marriage becomes more widespread throught the country in years to come.
You got it backwards. Marriage started out in this country as a religious institution and was absorbed by the civil governments because of their legal traits such as inheritance, paternity and child/spouse support.
As we have discussed before there is no constitutional amendment that lays claim that marriage is a right.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
When the bill of rights was first being debated, many people opposed adding them to the constitution. Not because they opposed the ideas of the rights enumerated therein, rather because they feared that people in the future would point at the document and declare that because something wasn’t specifically enumerated, it means it wasn’t a right, as you have done here.Tell me what amendment in the Constitution that says that marriage is a right. Where in the Constitution can I find this?
Our constitution does not enumerate all of our rights. It DOES enumerate all government powers, and one thing government is specifically proscribed from doing is treating different kinds of people differently. Thus you can’t have laws that apply to blacks but not whites. Or, in this case, homosexuals but not heterosexuals. It also means that laws requiring women to cover their breasts but not men are null and void, but that’s off topic.
E
ERose
Guest
So what you are saying is that this is not a federal issue, but rather a state issue since only states not the federal government issues marriage licenses. This we can agree upon. But the fact is that marriage in this country is not officially a right but a privilege just like any other privilege one must get a license for to do such as a drivers license, hunting license, etc. So from this point same sex marriage cannot be argued from the 14th amendment of the Constitution as is being done by these activist judges such as Judge Walker. It is a state issue and nothing more.When the bill of rights was first being debated, many people opposed adding them to the constitution. Not because they opposed the ideas of the rights enumerated therein, rather because they feared that people in the future would point at the document and declare that because something wasn’t specifically enumerated, it means it wasn’t a right, as you have done here.
Our constitution does not enumerate all of our rights. It DOES enumerate all government powers, and one thing government is specifically proscribed from doing is treating different kinds of people differently. Thus you can’t have laws that apply to blacks but not whites. Or, in this case, homosexuals but not heterosexuals. It also means that laws requiring women to cover their breasts but not men are null and void, but that’s off topic.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
Given that you believe this, and also must realize it will change NOTHING in YOUR life, why do you argue so vehemently against it??Hopefully you do realize that gay “marriage” would change NOTHING in the life of practicing homosexuals.
Some married heterosexuals do that, too. I know because my wife and I are among them. Would you have our marriage invalidated??They are already having sex with someone that they call their “partner”.
While I’m not gay, I routinely do things you would say violates the purpose of my sexual organs, and yet I feel no shame. Quite the contrary, I feel joy. Sexual organs do not exist for the sole purpose of procreation.Don’t you realize that the laws of God are written on the hearts of man. There is a REASON that we feel guilty, that we feel shame. When we are engaging in behavior that is contrary to Moral Law, to God’s purpose for our sexual organs…we’re SUPPOSED to feel shame.
Because it’s discriminatory, and our government is prohibited from being discriminatory.Now, if you can give me a good reason why the laws that govern marriage, that insist that this designation can only be given to one man who is marrying one woman, should be stricken from our judicial system. Please do
E
edwest2
Guest
This is not a civil rights issue:Given that you believe this, and also must realize it will change NOTHING in YOUR life, why do you argue so vehemently against it??
Some married heterosexuals do that, too. I know because my wife and I are among them. Would you have our marriage invalidated??
While I’m not gay, I routinely do things you would say violates the purpose of my sexual organs, and yet I feel no shame. Quite the contrary, I feel joy. Sexual organs do not exist for the sole purpose of procreation.
Because it’s discriminatory, and our government is prohibited from being discriminatory.
jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
God bless,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.