Should gay marriage be voted on by states or made a federal law

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Buddha12, May 10, 2012.

  1. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,951
    Just wondering as to what the consensus is around here. Seems this is going to be a topic during the upcoming Presidential election period so I was wondering what you thought about it.
     
  2. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,052
    Comming from a country where marriage is federal law I say federal and that ALL family law should be federal because why should crossing state lines change the way your relationship is treated and this goes for gay OR straight. Why should getting divorced in one state result in a different outcome than getting divorced in another.
     
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,951
    So the Federal laws should supercede those of the states then? So the voters should decide with a new amendment that gives the right to have gay marriages allowed or not. Let the voters decide, not just the states but everyone during the upcoming elections here.
     
  4. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    It should be federal law. Who really cares who marries who as long as they don't try to force any church to let them get married there I'm cool with it.
     
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,052
    I don't believe that state boundaries should have any effect on a relationship, gay or straight. Basically can you justify having the rules chance simply because you cross a line on a map? In one state say a person is gets one remedy for a divorce and in another they get another, how does that make sense?
     
  6. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,848
    IMHO such state "laws" are unconstitutional because they deny a "class" of tax - paying US citizens the same rights that other tax - paying citizens enjoy.

    If the right-of-the-right religious fanatics that pass such hooey really want to support the institution of marriage they should ban divorce. :mad: They won't do that though, because about 50% of them will walk away from their vows and promises made 'before their god' in their church.

    ...and I won't even get into spousal abuse.

    Posers. :(
     
  7. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,709
    Unless you can make a claim/argument that marriage should be included in the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, this is a state issue. And given the very conservative nature of the US Supreme Court, I don't see that happening. So it will remain a state issue, in my view.

    That doesn't mean that the US government could make a law recognizing same sex marriages and affording them the same federal benefits (e.g. tax code, employee benefit plans, etc.). But states will continue to determine the requirements for marriage and define what is a marriage.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,052
    Joe does the US constitution include something like "the free movement between states shall not be infrienged" or whatever?
     
  9. spidergoat alien lie form Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    46,911
    I think it's a civil rights issue.
     
  10. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,709
    The First Amendment to the Constitution allows for freedom of association. But I don't see how it applies to government sanctioning of marriage.
     
  11. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,709
    Could be, that is certainly how gays and their supporters view the issue. I don't view it that way. But given the extreme conservatism on the US Supreme Court, I don't think they would see it that way either. And they would be the ones to make that determination.

    Further, I don't see the federal government doing anything that would grant marriage tax benefits or federal employee benefits to gay couples under any circumstances. Because Republicans in Congress would fight it tooth and nail.

    Personally I think it is a tempest in a teapot. It really is not that important in the overall scheme of things. We have much bigger issues that need to be addressed. Mankind has existed for tens of thousands of years without gay marriage, I expect we can survive a few more years without it. At the same time, if gay marriage would become the norm in the land, it would not be the end of the world. The Sun will still rise each morning and set each afternoon. In my view, gays nor heterosexuals should need the state to sanction their relationship. I having been there, done that, am none to keen on getting married ever again. It ain't all that, in my humble opinion.
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,052
    I wasn't referring to freedom of association but freedom of movement between the states and I'm sure there is something there. As to why that should mean that the federal goverment should regulate ALL marriage it's quite simple. How your relationship is treated is a barrier to movement between the states. If its recognised here but not there or if divorce is legal here but not there or that your treated differently here than there these are all barriers to the free movement between the states and therefore there should be one set of laws nationally which regulate marriage
     
  13. spidergoat alien lie form Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    46,911
    You didn't say why you view it that way. And if you were one of the people personally affected by discrimination in marriage law, you would certainly care.
     
  14. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,709
    Do I have to have a reason? It is just my opinion based on my life experiences. Others will surely have a different opinion. If you love someone, why do you need the state to sanction the relationship? I can love someone without the need for the state to sanction the relationship. Marriage imposes legal liabilities one each participant in the marriage that I don't think most people fully appreciate until it is too late, until the marriage has lost it's appeal.

    As I said, either way, life will continue. It's not like the economy will crumble if we do or don't have state sanctioned gay marriage. I just don't think marriage is all that important be it heterosexual or homosexual. But obviously, a lot of folks disagree with me on that issue and that is their right.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2012
  15. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,848
    This is the crux of the dog biscuit, Joe:

    Equal Protection Clause
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.[3] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.

    More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
     
  16. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,951
    The US government has amendments to the Constitution dealing with alcohol and voting so I do not see why it couldn't also deal with marriages. My point is that an amendment would need to be voted on by everyone, not just made into a law by Congress.
     
  17. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,709
    True the Constitution could be amended. But that is not an easy nor quick task. And given the stiff Republican resistance to virtually anything Democrats are for, it won't happen any time soon. And then you still have to deal with an activist Republican Supreme Court, even if the Constitution were amended, there is no guarantee the Supreme Court would recognize the amendment as long as the court is protected from impeachment (i.e. have a Republican majority in the House).
     
  18. spidergoat alien lie form Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    46,911
    Because committed couples often have children to raise and there are thousands of rights enshrined in the law with respect to marriage. We know life will go on, but as long as straight people can get married, gay people should have the same right. For instance, say you are in a relationship with someone and they happen to live in another country. They cannot live here longer than a typical visa unless they get a green card. But if you marry them, they can become citizens and live here permanently.
     
  19. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,294
    We vote on the issue of marriage then let the congress. An representatives. Decide an pass that to the president.
    But I feel the president should have keep his mouth closed. I am not understanding why people even mentioned Rommney bulling some one in high school or Obama eating dog.
    Personally I am a Christian / primarily non denomination. An if the gays do end up marring it should be by the justice of the peace. But I would personally prefer they did not. I know someone who is gay. Known him almost all my life. He married a woman divorced with kids. An he's been with several men.
    A marriage is supposed to be between a man an woman. I think most religions agree. But if I must say. It should stay with the states...
     
  20. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,709
    Yes I have heard this argument before, but it's pretty damn weak in my view. But I am by no means a legal scholar or professional, nor have I spent much time thinking about it. So I can only express my lay opinion.

    The first thing that comes to mind is, Equal protection from what? Is there a right to marriage? If there is a right to marriage, why can states regulate who is entitled to the right and who is not. Ignoring the homosexual issue for a moment, states have since the inception of the state laid down rules about who can and cannot marry. Some states require blood tests; forbid incest; created age criteria and have many other requirements for a license of marriage. In my view, marriage is like any other state license. You meet the requirements for licensing, pay a fee and receive a license. There is no right to a state license if the state established requirements have not been met by the applicant. I don't need a license to exercise any of the other rights endowed upon me by the Constitution, so why would I need a license from the state to allow me to exercise my right to marriage - if there is a right to marriage? I can therefore only conclude that a license of marriage is not a right.

    Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause has only been applied to race, not sexual preference. There are no issues of race discrimination in the gay marriage debate. So the Equal Protection Clause does not apply, unless the Supreme Court takes a leap and says the Equal Protection Clause does apply to sexual preferences. And given the conservative activists on this Supreme Court, I just don't see that happening. Extending anti discrimination to sexual preferences could end up with some pretty interesting and unintended results. Most notably, laws requiring child predators to stay away from children would become null and void as those laws discriminate based on sexual preference.

    I see nowhere in the Constitution the right to marriage. I see a number of other rights, but I don't see a right to a license of marriage. So since I see no right to marriage, I see no abridgement of rights and the Equal Protection Clause. One has to have a right before it can be abridged.

    Like I have said, I really don't much care about this issue - how it goes one way or the other. I am single. I love the single life style. Having been married once, I cannot imagine why one would want to be married. Being single is a far better deal in my opinion. I just don't see much value in marriage heterosexual or not. And if gay marriage were to become the law of the land tomorrow, the Sun will still rise and set - no great trauma would affect the nation. Lawyers wallets would thicken a bit as the there would be a booming divorce business - assuming homosexual marriages last as long as heterosexual marriages.
     

Share This Page