Same Sex Marriage and the constitution

  • Thread starter Thread starter helpme94
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

helpme94

Guest
I am going to say outright that morally I am against same sex marriage. However, legally I would like some wisdom in explaining why same sex couples can’t have a civil union. I want to be totally against it, but I would like some guidance as to why same sex civil unions should be banned from a constitutional basis which allows freedom of religion.

Thanks for your help!
 
I don’t think there is or can there be a constructional argument against same gender marriage. Not without striking several amendments form the constitution

If you are going to run down the civil union road you are going to run into problems because they are not the legal equivalent of marriage. Even if those legal deficiencies were taken care of there would still be a problem with civil unions in that the courts have made it explicitly clear that separate but equal is not equal.
 
Cardinal George said this in a recent column:

"Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.

Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. "
–Cardinal George

Source: archchicago.org/blog/comments.aspx?postID=276

Does the Constitution provide a right to square circles on the basis of geometrical equality?
 
Cardinal George said this in a recent column:

"Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.

Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. "
–Cardinal George

Source: archchicago.org/blog/comments.aspx?postID=276

Does the Constitution provide a right to square circles on the basis of geometrical equality?
Any religious argument is moot, thanks to the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is thus that our forefathers sought to protect all Americans from the religious zealotry of a few, or even many.

the Constitution was written to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Amendment 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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."

That includes everyone…even a minority you may not happen to like
 
Any religious argument is moot, thanks to the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is thus that our forefathers sought to protect all Americans from the religious zealotry of a few, or even many.

the Constitution was written to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Amendment 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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."

That includes everyone…even a minority you may not happen to like
But of course, the quote from Cardinal George makes no religious argument at all. He merely states the biological facts: humans come in two complementary sexes. Opposite sex pairs are needed to engage in specifically marital relations. Thus, same sex marriage is simply an impossibility.

Now, if the14th Amendment is to be read as endowing a right of homosexual marriage, one would expect to find some evidence in the text itself, or in the legislative intent, or in the argumentation leading up to its adoption, that it was intended to bestow rights of marriage to same sex couples. But one finds no such thing. Indeed, if one were to have asked the question as to whether the amendment promulgated a right to same sex marriage, the answer would have been negative. Had the right of same sex marriage been there, one might have expected some reaction from those present at the time, whether favorably or unfavorably. But no one mentions it. No one suggests it.

So if one wishes to find same sex marriage in the Constitution, it will have to be put their by Constitutional amendment.
 
I am going to say outright that morally I am against same sex marriage. However, legally I would like some wisdom in explaining why same sex couples can’t have a civil union. I want to be totally against it, but I would like some guidance as to why same sex civil unions should be banned from a constitutional basis which allows freedom of religion.

Thanks for your help!
:)👍
I would like to help you if I can’t. First of all any laws created by men are not the same as any law created by God. In order to find the difference you cannot just search blindly because searching for a constitutional basis will not give you a satisfactory reason why God forbids such conditions. There are 613 laws that have come to us over the last 6000 years brought to us by the chosen people in Israel. This space does not allow for me to engage in a conversation of that magnitude but I would be more than happy if you send me your e-mail address to send you copies of these laws and their explanations which by and large fall in line with civil law. With God’s law there is a greater degree of consequence that you will be held responsible for regardless of what you may think at this time in your life. But I can tell you this if you send your e-mail to me I will send you not only those answers to come from Hebrew Scripture which goes back thousands of years but I will also give you where you can find it in any Bible that you happen to have around your place of residence they all have it but you will never find it unless you know the code or the key for the understanding if you can find. What I will send you is more than just the law- but I will give you in the same language that it was given to us; Hebrew; and at the same time I will show you which one came first and also where you can find it in the first five books of the law which every Bible has. If you are seeking this kind of an in-depth answer understand that what I am telling you is not what the average liberal is interested in hearing which tells you something about who they are following, God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. If you do not have the Blessed Trinity in your heart you will never have the wisdom or discernment to know what applies to you and what does not apply to you. There are many more things that we have compromised in this nation that was dedicated by the very first president, George Washington, when he was inaugurated as president he his entire cabinet walked did not run from where he was inaugurated to a little small church that still stands after all this time not far from the 9/11 destruction of the towers. However, Pres. Washington prayed in an effort to re-dedicate this land, the United States of America, to God Almighty and this is where the United States was born putting God on such things as the money, state buildings, schools and businesses of all sorts. It is true that our roots are grounded in the roots that God gave us and God cries every day when he sees what the heathens are doing to hurt him. I’m sorry but I am having to wipe my eyes because what hurts God also hurts me. We have more tradition than were ever given an opportunity to understand or to be taught and we have the obligation to teach our children all there is to know about God and what it means to love to serve and to obey the law of God. Where do we get off thinking like we are better than God who has had to fight this ever since he created the angel of light (Lucifer) and the effect that this evil creature as the audacity to do the best he can to turn us away from God to kill unborn children to cause harm with alcohol by consuming it and wasting all that we could possibly do to help mankind turn towards God and not be misled into the pains of hell by Lucifer who cares nothing for you but he wants to steal all that belongs to God the Creator of all things. You should have my e-mail attached to this note in some way and also I want to give you my phone number: (586) 994-1725. I serve God every day because he commands me to do the things he gives me to do. Thank you, Lawrence.🙂
 
Why, other than record-keeping purposes, is marriage a legal matter? Because marriage means family, family means children, and children mean a functional birth rate. So, to protect these interests, the government does what they do best - create tax privileges to families, especially families that have kids. Since the biology isn’t there for homosexual couples to have children, they cannot contribute to the birth rate, and therefore are not working towards national productivity on that front, so in turn, should not get the additional tax benefits.

Non-religious, factual, and exactly how a politician’s mind would work.
 
:)👍
I would like to help you if I can’t. First of all any laws created by men are not the same as any law created by God. In order to find the difference you cannot just search blindly because searching for a constitutional basis will not give you a satisfactory reason why God forbids such conditions. There are 613 laws that have come to us over the last 6000 years brought to us by the chosen people in Israel. This space does not allow for me to engage in a conversation of that magnitude but I would be more than happy if you send me your e-mail address to send you copies of these laws and their explanations which by and large fall in line with civil law. With God’s law there is a greater degree of consequence that you will be held responsible for regardless of what you may think at this time in your life. But I can tell you this if you send your e-mail to me I will send you not only those answers to come from Hebrew Scripture which goes back thousands of years but I will also give you where you can find it in any Bible that you happen to have around your place of residence they all have it but you will never find it unless you know the code or the key for the understanding if you can find. What I will send you is more than just the law- but I will give you in the same language that it was given to us; Hebrew; and at the same time I will show you which one came first and also where you can find it in the first five books of the law which every Bible has. If you are seeking this kind of an in-depth answer understand that what I am telling you is not what the average liberal is interested in hearing which tells you something about who they are following, God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. If you do not have the Blessed Trinity in your heart you will never have the wisdom or discernment to know what applies to you and what does not apply to you. There are many more things that we have compromised in this nation that was dedicated by the very first president, George Washington, when he was inaugurated as president he his entire cabinet walked did not run from where he was inaugurated to a little small church that still stands after all this time not far from the 9/11 destruction of the towers. However, Pres. Washington prayed in an effort to re-dedicate this land, the United States of America, to God Almighty and this is where the United States was born putting God on such things as the money, state buildings, schools and businesses of all sorts. It is true that our roots are grounded in the roots that God gave us and God cries every day when he sees what the heathens are doing to hurt him. I’m sorry but I am having to wipe my eyes because what hurts God also hurts me. We have more tradition than were ever given an opportunity to understand or to be taught and we have the obligation to teach our children all there is to know about God and what it means to love to serve and to obey the law of God. Where do we get off thinking like we are better than God who has had to fight this ever since he created the angel of light (Lucifer) and the effect that this evil creature as the audacity to do the best he can to turn us away from God to kill unborn children to cause harm with alcohol by consuming it and wasting all that we could possibly do to help mankind turn towards God and not be misled into the pains of hell by Lucifer who cares nothing for you but he wants to steal all that belongs to God the Creator of all things. You should have my e-mail attached to this note in some way and also I want to give you my phone number: (586) 994-1725. I serve God every day because he commands me to do the things he gives me to do. Thank you, Lawrence.🙂
This is the grammar police. 😦 Please divide your thoughts into paragraphs so that they can be easily reviewed, understood, and analyzed. Thanks!😉
 
But of course, the quote from Cardinal George makes no religious argument at all. He merely states the biological facts: humans come in two complementary sexes. Opposite sex pairs are needed to engage in specifically marital relations. Thus, same sex marriage is simply an impossibility.

Now, if the14th Amendment is to be read as endowing a right of homosexual marriage, one would expect to find some evidence in the text itself, or in the legislative intent, or in the argumentation leading up to its adoption, that it was intended to bestow rights of marriage to same sex couples. But one finds no such thing. Indeed, if one were to have asked the question as to whether the amendment promulgated a right to same sex marriage, the answer would have been negative. Had the right of same sex marriage been there, one might have expected some reaction from those present at the time, whether favorably or unfavorably. But no one mentions it. No one suggests it.

So if one wishes to find same sex marriage in the Constitution, it will have to be put their by Constitutional amendment.
Jim,

I like your presentation. The problem is that a woman’s right to abortion wasn’t in there either, but somehow they “found” it. :confused:

I am afraid in the long run that Tracer will be proven correct. So that’s another reason to vote this November.

FG
 
The quote you used above these statements are not religious arguments, but biological arguments; therefore, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. A condition of impossible privileges is not something that is deprived by laws, but by its non-existence; therefore, the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.

I like gay people and have close friends who say they are married, but the reality is they are not. I like them very much. This isn’t even an argument just a plain falsehood.
Any religious argument is moot, thanks to the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is thus that our forefathers sought to protect all Americans from the religious zealotry of a few, or even many.

the Constitution was written to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Amendment 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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."

That includes everyone…even a minority you may not happen to like
 
And I’ve heard this argument before. They use one to play off the other. They want children to ‘validate’ their marriages, but they aren’t likely to be able to adopt if they aren’t married - they are using one to play off of the other, but neither holds their ground independently.
 
Jim,

I like your presentation. The problem is that a woman’s right to abortion wasn’t in there either, but somehow they “found” it. :confused:

I am afraid in the long run that Tracer will be proven correct. So that’s another reason to vote this November.

FG
Women making medical decisions on their own? What WERE they thinking?

using the 14th The supreme court has also somehow “found”
That free speech is protected at the state level
That government at any level cannot censor a publication
That individuals arrested must be made aware of their legal rights
That segregation in schools was unconstitutional
That segregation period was unconstitutional
That children had the same rights as adults in criminal cases.
 
The quote you used above these statements are not religious arguments, but biological arguments; therefore, the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
Marriage is a reflection of the biological necessity of a one-to-one heterosexual union for procreation, true enough, and it provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all.

But that’s not all marriage is, by any means, which is why the law generally allows prisoners to marry even when they’re likely never to be released, has no bar against elderly couples getting married , imposes no fertility requirements on prospective marriage partners and considers long-term childless marriages equal to others.

Further, lesbian couples often get pregnant (with outside help, admittedly, but many heterosexual couples get outside help as well) and their families could benefit as well from the legal framework of marriage.
A condition of impossible privileges is not something that is deprived by laws, but by its non-existence; therefore, the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.
You’re gonna have to explain this one
I like gay people and have close friends who say they are married, but the reality is they are not. I like them very much. This isn’t even an argument just a plain falsehood.
If they were married in a state or country that legally recognizes same gendered marriage…then like it or not they are married.
 
I think the U.S. Constitution is quite irrelevant to the current marriage debate. If we want to have same-sex marriage, that’s constitutional, and if we want to not have it, that’s equally constitutional.
 
But of course, the quote from Cardinal George makes no religious argument at all. He merely states the biological facts: humans come in two complementary sexes. Opposite sex pairs are needed to engage in specifically marital relations. Thus, same sex marriage is simply an impossibility.

Now, if the14th Amendment is to be read as endowing a right of homosexual marriage, one would expect to find some evidence in the text itself, or in the legislative intent, or in the argumentation leading up to its adoption, that it was intended to bestow rights of marriage to same sex couples. But one finds no such thing. Indeed, if one were to have asked the question as to whether the amendment promulgated a right to same sex marriage, the answer would have been negative. Had the right of same sex marriage been there, one might have expected some reaction from those present at the time, whether favorably or unfavorably. But no one mentions it. No one suggests it.

So if one wishes to find same sex marriage in the Constitution, it will have to be put their by Constitutional amendment.
The problem with this kind of approach to constitutional interpretation is that very few users of it actually use it consistently. You could literally use the exact same argument to argue that the equal protection clause doesn’t ban racial segregation laws because the congress that wrote the 14th amendment didn’t intend it to bar separate but equal.
 
And I’ve heard this argument before. They use one to play off the other. They want children to ‘validate’ their marriages, but they aren’t likely to be able to adopt if they aren’t married - they are using one to play off of the other, but neither holds their ground independently.
You are assigning motives to an entire group of people and I am sure you don’t know their or any one else’s motives.
Are you saying that the only reason infertile heterosexual couples want to adopt is to “’validate’ their marriages”

There is a lawsuit in Michigan just starting up. A same gendered couple with three adoptive children are suing because according to the law only one of them can be a parent and the other is a “legal stranger”
 
And I’ve heard this argument before. They use one to play off the other. They want children to ‘validate’ their marriages, but they aren’t likely to be able to adopt if they aren’t married - they are using one to play off of the other, but neither holds their ground independently.
That’s a fairly big claim. Any evidence for it?
 
Gee parentless children adopted by loving caring couples…that sure is a horrible slippery slope
 
But of course, the quote from Cardinal George makes no religious argument at all. He merely states the biological facts: humans come in two complementary sexes. Opposite sex pairs are needed to engage in specifically marital relations. Thus, same sex marriage is simply an impossibility.
The only way this is true is if you make Marriage = Procreation. That is not the case secular law, so your point that “Opposite sex pairs are needed” doesn’t apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top