Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens – including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Whats up, This is a wonderful summation, I located your blog checking goggle for any similar subject and observed this. I couldn't find as well significantly other tips and information about ---------- on this posting, so it was fantastic to discover this one. I will almost certainly be returning to think about a number of other articles which you have written another time. testking SY0-301|testking 640-822|testking 350-030|testking SY0-201|testking N10-004|testking CISSP|testking 646-205|testking 640-816|testking 642-832|testking 70-649|
The same-sex marriage advocates who today congratulate themselves as freedom fighters in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, and Lech Walesa are misconstruing the significance of what these leaders accomplished in the face of actual tyranny. Whether they mean to or not, the gay marriage movement is confusing the civil rights struggles against slavery, racism, and totalitarianism with something very different—their desire to redesign history's most important cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it meaningless.
Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood?
Just as it is with these institutions and definitions, so it is with marriage—each one is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, it is nothing at all. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition.
Ancient Greeks and Romans allowed homosexual relations and glorified the men of the age. They thought it was natural for 2 men to be sexually attracted to eachother.
Also the constitution guarantess the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does barring a marriage between two people who love eachother not violate that?
this is such an ignorant argument.
gays can marry whoever the hell they want.
IT'S A CIVIL RIGHT.
When Iowa legalized gay marriage the argument was over! Article IV, Section 1of the US Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause says public acts ( marriage , drivers licenses, ect.), of one state must be recognized by another. Gay marriages done in Iowa will have to be recognized in all the other states.
Is that a fact what about the concealed carry permit holders?
I would say yes but I'm not an attorney. What is needed is for the NRA or some other group to start a test case.
Less than two weeks ago the senate stopped a bill that would of made it legal for concealed carry permit holders to be recognize from state to state.
As it stands today no state haves to recognize the permits.
Someone would to start a test case to prove it but I think the Senate was wrong. States not recognizing the concealed carry permit of other states should be unconstitutional.
Should be but not
so we are comparing marriage between 2 consenting loving TAX PAYING citizens to a piece of metal with no emotions?
Imagine a social contract entitled "married with a man". Imagine a man (who can give legal consent) being unable to enter such a social contract. Under these very limited circumstances, is it not true that the man is being discriminated against on the basis of gender?
Granted, marriages are more complicated than other social contracts, perhaps...
People of the same sex should be allowed to marry. Amendment 14 states that allpeople should be treated equally. Not letting two people who love one another no matter if the same sex is not being treated equally. You can not help who you love. I vote YES for gay marriage.
I couldn't keep a straight face reading this. It would also have helped you realize your last sentence isn't even a sentence.
To put more care into rebutting your argument than was put into framing it:
A parent can't marry their child because it would be psychologically abusive; the parent is in a position of authority over their child. This is not comparable to relationships between consenting adults.
Two- to three-partner marriages have died out not because of wisdom, but because of social equality between the sexes and the rise of industrialization, which means money is no longer represented in land, families are more mobile socially and geographically, and marriages have lost diplomatic value. It means that a rich man no longer needs to collect wives as representatives of the land he's acquired and tokens gathered to assure good relations with his neighbors. Polygamy and polyandry are also usually inequal-power relationships.
None of this has anything to do with two unrelated adults who are in love, want to marry, and cannot based purely on the laws of the society they live in.
First of all, Muslims and other religious practitioners not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion have and do allow muliple marriages.
Secondly, if being allowed to marry is not a civil right, I don't know what it.
As for natural, how come same sexual mating behavior exists in the same proportion in the mammal world in general as it does amongst homo sapiens?
Sorry, feel like I have to say it again. That's a made up word. Jews were not involved in the creation of this word.
a parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
i'm sorry, are you seriously comparing homosexual relationships to *rape* (incest) or adultery? is that really what you mean to suggest here?
ed
I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post. HP0-S25 \\ 1z0-054 \\ 70-686 \\ 70-270 \\ 1Y0-A05 \\ 117-102 \\ E20-335 \\ HP0-S32