The bottom line is that most people are against it and in a democracy, that's how it works except when a law violates the constitution and there's nothing in the constitution that ensures the rights of marriage to anyone. Marriage is only recognized by the government because of enacted law, not because of the consitutution.

The constitution does not state either way on gay marriage or imply either way. The issue should be left to the legislature to decide, not the courts. If your arguments are sound and reasonable, they will convince the majority of Americans of their validity and they will reward you by voting for legislatures to make it law.

The courts are definitely not the way to go. When people use the strawman argument of people favoring slavery they are showing a gross misreading of history. As the Dred Scott case demonstrated, the courts overturned legislatures that were trying to outlaw slavery. It required a constitutional amendment to ban slavery. So it's a bit insulting to see people turning history on its head to push their agenda.

What is needed here is for the courts to stay out of it. Let the people decide what is and isn't okay on this issue. It's really as simple as that. It's part of living in a democracy. I consider the amount of my income and my company's income that the government confiscates to be a violation of my civil rights too. But I respect and abide by the rules of a democracy. Gays should do the same thing. Crying it's not fair is  not an argument.

Bad example. Any child can pray to themselves in any public school in this country, which oddly enough is what the Bible favors.

Matthew 6:5 - And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Strangely enough you can take your child to school and stand on the public sidewalk and pray right there as well. In the car before they go into the school. Same thing at the end of day.

And the Courts have been giving leeway to student led v. school sanctioned prayer.

Disingenuous whining because they don't get to proselytize.

One last nit-pick since Brad forces the issue. Georgia didn't have a 'super-majority' to abolish slavery there, but it was. Maryland didn't. It was about to join the seccession and dissolve the government completely. It was Lincoln's voiding the Constitutional provision for it, voiding habeas corpus, declaring martial law and openly sending 'federals' to imprison and murder Citizens of a Sovereign State, that started the Civil War.
In application to this discussion, gays, it is my reading of it, they are claiming that if a Sovereign Citizen of Hawaii can marry, then a gay in Georgia can, as they are entitled to the protection of a Citizen of the several States. It is once again, Federalism which is dictating what the 'super-majority' of a Sovereign State can do. Legislatures are being voided by a Republican Administration once again.
Finally, it is an annual finding of Law students that in FACT, the original 13th amendment was ratified by the thirteenth State when Virginia published its ratification of it, on the date of 12 March 1819.. That 13th amendment said: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emporor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." The act thereby declared all those possessing the title of "Esquire" (lawyers) were beholden to the British, as officers of that Court and so were stripped of their ability to control our Congress.
I don't revise history Brad, but Lincoln did.

Whatever fantasy you want to have Wahkonta is okay with me. But if you want to debate the cause of the civil war feel free to create your own post and write your own theories on it there.

The bottom line is that how the constitution is amended is very clear cut. The 13th amendment was passed not by judges but by the people. It was not imposed by Lincoln or any other boogeyman.

If gays want to get married, the onus is on them to convince the majority of its validity and get their legislatures to pass laws allowing it.  That's how it works in a democracy.

 

When the courts decide to over-interpret the constitution, they begin to legislate. All the 'majority' rhetoric is meaningless, because the courts couldn't care less about popular opinion, they *interpret* the law. The problem is, political interests use the courts to circumvent the legislative process, and the voters are cut completely out of the process.

This is just an end-run around the legislative process. If you can't lobby hard enough to change the minds of legislators, get the courts to force change on everyone.

Brad
Your idea that marriage hasn't anything to do with religion, is at best a foolish notion. Marriage comes straight from the bible just as Betty Crocker's fresh hot cookies come from the oven. Theres no way around that fact I don't care if you're agnostic or whatever you are. Marriage is a religious tradition. People do it to keep from being fornicators which is according to the bible a sin, among other reasons. That is just one purpose of marriage. To make it legal. Ever hear marriage referred to as that? We made it legal?
What I would like to know is, while straight people take their marriages for granted daily by committing adultry and breaking their vows of committment and many divorcing, who are they to tell any other 2 people that love each other that they can not be married?
No Brad no one is trying to use governmental tools to hijack your so called super majority traditions. But it is the complete right of gay people, who are not by the way second class citizens and who do pay taxes just the same you and everyone else does, to ride the same plane as you do and not have to take the back seats.

w Wakonta

Wanting a tax credit has nothing to do what so ever with gays wanting egual rights. They want equal rights because they are tired of being discriminated against and being treated as second class citizens. Monitary gain has nothing to do with it. Stop pretending to be an authoritarian on something that you know nothing about. GCJ

If marriage is simply a religious idea, then for the government to change what that idea means is an insult to religions everywhere, and for homosexuals to refuse to respect the religious beliefs of a group makes them look bad. What's next? A group of Pagans demanding that the Christian belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior be changed to a belief in Wonder Woman being the Daughter of God?
I don't agree with every belief from every religion, but I'm not going to try to legislate that their beliefs be changed to mine, so why should homosexuals do that?

GCJ: When did I claim that religion has nothing to do with religion? My article implies the opposite (or tries to). That the government shoudl never have gotten involved in teh marriage business in the first place. I think marriage is in a murky gray area in between at this point.

MY opposition to gay marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with respecting the desires of the majority of Americans. We have a government based on the rule of law. Judges legislating from the bench is not the way.

I think Messy Buu has a point. I do not think there is a way to put marriage in non-religious terms. Atheists, agnostics and others not married in a church but they are still legally wed, with all the rights and responsibilities included. Now I think that the amendment could not touch upon the religious aspect of marriage, but it could hit the civil aspect. A civil union could only be between a man and a woman.
While the super-majority argument is interesting and the congress did pass the amendments, it took a Supreme court decision to strike down the "seperate but equal" argument.
Also, people on both sides are saying what majority supprts which. What we need to know is how the opinion question was asked.

What does the majority say about giving full legal rights to a long-term emotional partner?

Jalbert

InfoGeek: Most states expressly outlaw gay marriage. If gays want the "right" to get married they need to convince their legislatures to pass laws allowing them to get married. That is how the system works.

A good number also outlaw sodomy, but the SC has started to change that.

Question: What if the SC decides that a civil union, with all its legal rights, can include a union between a man and a woman?

I assume you mean a same-sex union since they already have civil unions between men and women.

If the SC did that I would consider that to be a gross misreading of the constitution. The founders set up the constitution in such a way to be as clear and concise as possible so that legislatures would be left with very clear rules on what is and isn't legal.

Sodomy laws and other private sexual acts between citizens was correct to be outlawed because what two citizens do on their private property is none of anyone's business. It only becomes a state matter if what they do has an affect on the general public welfare.

This isn't a left-wing right wing issue necessarily. Right wingers were wrong to implement various sexual laws. The state (government) has no right to tell people what they can't do privately when the results of that don't affect others. If having sex gave off spores or something into the neighborhood that would be a different thing.

But marriage isn't a right. It's a priviledge. That is the fundamental problem with this debate. There are lots of people who can't get driver's licenses. But the state can forbid that because driver's licenses are a priviledge, not a right. There are a lot of other things that go along the same principle. Cars and such, like marriage, are not mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, how they are handled is left up to legislatures.

This may sound condescending but I mean this honestly: Read the constitution. It is a remarkable document because it forsaw a lot of this kind of thing. It's solution was explicit: If something isn't expressly stated in this consitution is it reserved to the state legislatures. I mean they literally spell it out.

That's why these kinds of things are so poisonous. I try to be consistent on this issue. I am adamently pro-choice. I feel very strongly on this issue. But it is not an issue the supreme court should be deciding. It should be something state legislatures decide because that is what the constitution expressly says.

If the constitution was a computer program it would be: IF <ISSUE> IS NOT LISTED IN CONSTITUTION THEN STATES DECIDE.

When the SC overturned sodomy laws it was able to point to the the constitution and show how that law violated people's rights. I would be interested to see which article of the constitution that makes marriage a civil right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

 

Brad you wrote, Those who favor opening up marriage to gays are wrong. It has nothing to do with religion. 5th paragraph. GCJ

I realize that. And I am against opening up marriage to gays. And I am agnostic. Hence the rest of my article which explains why I am against it.

I always thought the "protection of marriage" was a buncha right-wing crap, but reading this thread I can really see a possible progression and maybe there is some truth in it.

1) Marriage defined as exclusively man-woman in numerous States thru defense of marriage acts
2) Civil Union for gays made legal in many States to placate homosexual agenda / leftists
3) Corporations and local jurisdictions give equal benefits to marriage and civil unions - it's easier, and "politically correct"
4) Marriage progressively seen more as a religious ceremony, explicit language in goverment and corporations increasingly vague re: marriage / civil union - opting towards the more generic "civil union"
5) Increasingly people opt for a civil union (in government terms), popular social language refers to both as "marriage".
6) Religious groups push to claim "ownership" of marriage to counter society's blurring of line
7) Gradual transition away from marriage as government and societal concept, more secular "civil union" preferred.
7) Governments remove marriage language in reference to benefits citing separation of church and state.

No?

Is there any precedent of this occurring in countries which are more permissive of gay marriage - say, those weirdos in Europe ?