njlauren
Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SadistDave
The whole thing is a load of leftist bullshit and has nothing at all to do with equality. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a religious and/or legal contract. SCOTUS has no interest in the religious aspects, however, a government has every right to define what marriage is for legal purposes, just as it has the right to deny drivers licenses to blind people or to deny citizenship to criminal immigrants. In fact, part of the job of the government is to define legal statuses and decide who pays fines, fees, or taxes based on their legal statuses. That's rather a big part of what governments do actually...
Gays have the same right to marry as straights. As far as the federal government is concerned, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. That right has never been denied them. They may enter into this federally recognised contract at any time they wish to. They simply choooooooose not to marry someone of the opposite sex. In spite of the fact that they are exactly equal under the law as heterosexuals; their entire argument hinges soley on the fact that they just don't want enter into a legal contract with someone of the opposite sex, but they want the same benefits of those who do.
I would guess that SCOTUS will gut DOMA because it is politically expedient, but stop short of making gay marriage legally recognized at the federal level.
-SD-
And this is complete and utter bullshit, it is right wing drivel that if you tried arguing this in court anywhere but Alabama would be laughed at. Some salient points for you:
1)You don't have to have clergy involved to get married, you can be married by a judge, by a clerk, by a ship's captain at sea, there is no requirement for clergy..and the reason is that they are considered officers of the state and thus have the right to legally marry people. If it is a religious sacrament, why is the state recognizing it? Why do you need a licence? And the answer is because the state grants rights to married people, it is a legal contract, not a religious one. Unfortunately, being lazy and also being in the pocket of the bible thumpers, they gave clergy the right to sign the marriage certificate, but legally it is all the state
2)The state cannot deny a right to a class of people without some proof of need to do so, and what a bunch of bronze age nomadic Jews thought or didn't think is irrelevant. The arguments against same sex marriage all come back to religion, and that is no basis for denying rights, among other things, it is accepting what let's say the evangelical Christians says is moral versus what every jewish sect other then the orthodox say, or what the UU, UCC, Episcopal church and others say....there would need to be proof that denying gays the right to marry protects society, and there is no proof. Children? They tried that one, and Kagan nailed them, because we allow people past menopause to marry, we allow infertile people to marry, and we don't require a couple to say they will have kids to get married.....the whole procreation thing is Catholic Dogma, and it is not proof of anything.
We deny driver's licenses to young people who aren't mature enough, we deny the right to marry to kids below a certain age because they cannot consent legally, we deny the right to get into a contract until someone is 18, and there is reason behind it....Genesis or leviticius or what the Pope or Jerry Fallwell said isn't proof of anything.
3)I suggest you also read up on the history of marriage.....most people didn't bother to get married until the 17th century, the only people who got married before that time were well off people and nobility, and they did so to preserve titles for their offspring and inheritance rights. Most people coupled, had kids and raised them, never getting married...and then, when they had property to protect, they started getting married...for the LEGAL benefits...so much for the sacred right.
Even the idiot on the Prop 8 case couldn't come up with a reason, he pretty much admitted that, the only excuse he came up with was procreation, and that had more holes knocked in it than a piece of swiss cheese. Bill O'Reilly, not exactly the most liberal guy, recently came out and said that the opponents of same sex marriage had only one argument and that was thumping the bible, and he said if that was the basis for denying same sex marriage, then it was wrong, pure and simple..shook me when I read that one. He said he personally didn't care one way or the other, but he hit the nail on the head, that religious arguments have zero basis in law. I could argue that same sex marriage bans violate the first amendment, because denying benefits based on the belief of one group of believers is the law giving weight to their beliefs over others (more then 50% of Catholics support same sex marriage, for example), it is the state deciding which belief should hold weight, and that is illegal.
|
RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread