Indeed, now that parts of both Europe and America have either full gay marriage or gay civil unions if there were real damage to other people then there should be evidence of that damage available to hand. For instance, has the Massachusetts divorce rate changed appreciably since gay marriage was legalised there about seven years ago?i think that DOMA is probably on it’s way out. here’s the reasoning:
the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. various court cases (loving v virginia, turner v safley) have ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. so while the idea of gay marriage might be unpopular now (just as interracial marriage was once unpopular), in thirty years people will look back at this debate and wonder what all the noise was about.
the other big legal problem for people advocating against gay marriage is that it’s impossible to prove standing. it’s impossible to say that gay marriage is going to damage anybody else.
What does DOMA stand for?i think that DOMA is probably on it’s way out. here’s the reasoning:
the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. various court cases (loving v virginia, turner v safley) have ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. so while the idea of gay marriage might be unpopular now (just as interracial marriage was once unpopular), in thirty years people will look back at this debate and wonder what all the noise was about.
the other big legal problem for people advocating against gay marriage is that it’s impossible to prove standing. it’s impossible to say that gay marriage is going to damage anybody else.
The problem is defining marriage as one man and one woman doesnt violate any equal protection clsue. Also marriage is a priviledge ont a right no matter what the court says. Rights are based on natural law and theres no natural that indicates marriage should be a righti think that DOMA is probably on it’s way out. here’s the reasoning:
the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. various court cases (loving v virginia, turner v safley) have ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. so while the idea of gay marriage might be unpopular now (just as interracial marriage was once unpopular), in thirty years people will look back at this debate and wonder what all the noise was about.
the other big legal problem for people advocating against gay marriage is that it’s impossible to prove standing. it’s impossible to say that gay marriage is going to damage anybody else.
The courts improperly rule with no logical basis for their conclusions. One man one woman marriage doesnt violate anyones “rights” and marriage should be as much a “right” as having a drivers license is a “right” which it isnt although I bet there anr many who would argue it should be.What does DOMA stand for?
While the current trends seem to indicate that homosexual marriage will eventually become the law of the land, I do not think that in 30 years people will look back on it as they do the hubbub surrounding interracial marriages. The Catholic Church at least will still be teaching that homosexual unions are immoral while the Church never spoke of interacial marriages as being immoral.
It’s like with Roe v Wade. Abortion on demand was enshrined as the law of the land nearly 40 years ago. But all people certainly are not looking back wondering what the noise was about. The fight is still going on. It will be the same with homosexual unions. It may become the law of the land, but for those who take the Christian faith seriously, it will never be acceptable.
DoMA is the defense of marriage act. i was passed in the 90s under clinton. recently, the obama justice department said they would no longer try to enforce it, because they thought it was unconstitutional. you can see the letter here.What does DOMA stand for?
While the current trends seem to indicate that homosexual marriage will eventually become the law of the land, I do not think that in 30 years people will look back on it as they do the hubbub surrounding interracial marriages. The Catholic Church at least will still be teaching that homosexual unions are immoral while the Church never spoke of interacial marriages as being immoral.
It’s like with Roe v Wade. Abortion on demand was enshrined as the law of the land nearly 40 years ago. But all people certainly are not looking back wondering what the noise was about. The fight is still going on. It will be the same with homosexual unions. It may become the law of the land, but for those who take the Christian faith seriously, it will never be acceptable.
well, i don’t want to get into some semantic argument about the difference between a privilege and a right. but the fact is that the supreme court has decided that marriage is a legal right. they have deemed it so fundamental that even people in prison are allowed to get married.ignatius777: The problem is defining marriage as one man and one woman doesnt violate any equal protection clsue. Also marriage is a priviledge ont a right no matter what the court says. Rights are based on natural law and theres no natural that indicates marriage should be a right
isn’t that self evident? i mean, i guess that i couldn’t agree with this statement more, but just this one;pd91c: The homosexuals want to be … treated in every way as those who are NOT homosexuals.
Our Jewish brothers and sisters have indeed spoken about this:RESOLUTIONThis is not a civil rights issue. Our Jewish brothers have also spoken about this:
jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3
Not strictly correct. There are currently some Constitutional challenges, under the equal protection element of the Fifth Amendment. The DoJ has decided that it will not longer oppose those challenges to the DoMA. It will still enforce the law, but it will not oppose attempts to have it ruled unconstitutional. When and if it is so ruled then they will obviously stop enforcing it.DoMA is the defense of marriage act. i was passed in the 90s under clinton. recently, the obama justice department said they would no longer try to enforce it, because they thought it was unconstitutional. you can see the letter here.
This is a very weak argument. The equivalent before Loving v Virginia was:Marriage is a natural right. But current marriage laws do not violate equal protection. Anyone may get married to someone of the oppose sex and of the same race regardless of their sexual preferences.Marriage is a natural right. But current marriage laws do not violate equal protection. Anyone may get married to someone of the oppose sex regardless of their sexual preferences.
Jewish World Review Nov. 5, 2008 / 7 Mar-Cheshvan 5769
Affirmative Action and Gay ‘Marriage’
By Thomas Sowell
…
this part i bolded isn’t exactly correct. it would be true if he said “since the victorian era in the west.” but it’s an appeal to tradition. for centuries people thought the sun revolved around the earth, it did not make it so.Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.
this is a slippery slope argument. if marriage is two people becoming one, then polygamy would not fit in here. children cannot make adult decisions, so them getting married necessarily involves coercion. but this is so obviously a logical fallacy i won’t spend any more time on it.The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
this is untrue. sterile couples are allowed to get married, old people are allowed to get married, people that don’t want kids are allowed to get married. the potential or intent to produce children is not a qualification for marriage.Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.
this is an equivocation. the writer is confusing “approval” for “legal rights.” but what is implied is more pernicious. the writer seems to be implying that gays were in a better position when they were in the closet. the statement belies a certain callousness.None of us has a right to other people’s approval.
Persons of complementary sex but different race are not inherently incapable of the marital act.This is a very weak argument. The equivalent before Loving v Virginia was:Marriage is a natural right. But current marriage laws do not violate equal protection. Anyone may get married to someone of the oppose sex and of the same race regardless of their sexual preferences.
That argument was rightly thrown out by the Supreme Court. You would do well to try to find a different argument, one that the Supreme Court has not already rejected.
rossum
thanks for the link, but i found the article to be even more confusing than the last.I disagree. Here is one more article that I think puts things clearly into perspective:
jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
Peace,
Ed
i don’t even know where to start. but the part in bold is just not true. i’m not going to get into it, though, because i’m not going to try to convince people what they feel is wrong. i will point out where arguments are logically indefensible, but this article you linked to is so full of untruths misrepresentations that there is no point in debating it.All of us are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. The newly fashionable claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.