Gay Marriage ... Really?
There has been much in the news in regards to gay marriage. A San Franciso judge, Vaughn Walker, overturned, California's Prop 8, banning gay marriage. At the same time ordering a temporary stay pending appeal. Final papers were filed for appeal this past Friday, thus, a decision on a permanent stay should soon follow. California's Attorney Genreal, Jerry Brown, has immediately sought to resume gay marriage in light of the new ruling. That is just the bones of the animal.
Marriage is defined as a contract. All persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to the years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. (legal definition) In this sense, a legal sense, gay marriage does not violate the definition of marriage. However, the US Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate marriage by prescribing who can marry and the manner in which marriage can be dissolved. The right to marry cannot be casually denied. States are forbidden from preventing marriage in the absence of a valid reason. An example of this is would be such as when the US Supreme Court struck down (ruled against) laws in southern states that prohibited racially mixed marriages.These statutes (southern laws) were found to be unconstitutional in the 1967 case of Loving v Virginia, because they violate equal protection of the law.
Those opposed to gay marriage used this same argument in presenting their case to the court in San Franciso. The judge, being bound by law, found the same as the US Supreme Court, banning gay marriage is a violation of equal rights protection. This case will likely make its way to the US Supreme Court, where once again they will be forced to make a definitive statement on gay marriage.
So, from a legal point of view, marriage is simply a contract. Nothing more, nothing less. From a Constitutional point of view, you can not prevent gays from marrying based on the fact that they are gay as this is a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
So what is the equal protection clause of the Constitution? "All persons born or naturalijurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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 the due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What it means: because many states continued to pass laws that restricted the rights of former slaves, on June 13, 1866, Congress passed and sent to the states for ratification, the 14th Amendment. It was ratified on July 9, 1868, the amendment granted US citizenship to former slaves and specifically changed the rule in Article 1, Section 2 that slaves be counted only as 3/5's of a person for purposes of representation in Congress. It also contained 3 new limits on states power: 1) a state shall not violate a citizens priviledges or immunities 2) shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process 3) must guarantee all persons equal protection of the law. This limits the ability of states to discriminate against people based on their race, national origin, gender, or any other status. For example, it garantees voting rights, womens rights, minorities rights, equal employment opportunies. It basically garantees civil rights.
So, from a legal point of view, there is no reason that gays can not marry.
The religious right has taken up this battle because they are defining marriage in a religious sense. What they are really defining is 'covenant marriage'. In a covenant marriage the marrying couple agree to pre-marital counseling and accept a more limited grounds for divorce. Covenant marriage emphasizes the belief that marriage is more than just a mere contract between two individuals, it is a religious marriage. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact, it is a good thing. However, a religious marriage can not be forced upon those of other beliefs ......that 1st amendment (freedom of religion) that allows a person to hold and exercise whatever religious beliefs they chose.
So, from a legal point of view, gay marriage is perfectly legal and right and proper. From a religious point of view, it may not be in keeping with some religious beliefs and that is ok too. However, we can not govern or legislate from one single religious point of view. This is exactly why our forefathers had the separation of church and state.
It may interest many to know, however, that many main line churches do welcome gays and many, the Catholic church included, offer special programs that target gays (in the same way that boy scouts target boys, etc). It is only the radical religious right that is putting up such a rant over gay marriage. In the state of California, it was the Mormons who came in from Utah, and did all the campaigning against gay marriage ....it was the Mormons that funded everything and it was the Utah people that pushed Prop 8, it was not even something that originated in California!
In a world where love seems to be so elusive, a divorce rate of 50%, why would we ever want to put out the embers of love, no matter where they burn?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
First, there is a huge difference between a state's power to "regulate" marriage (age, residency,etc) and a state's attempt by popular vote or otherwise to arbitrarily "prohibit" a segment of its' populace from entering into that status. The fact that religions cannot marry ANYONE without a license granted by the state demonstrates the superior interest of the state in marriage.Let each religion establish its' regulations for marriage within their respective churches, but keep their asses out of the Courthouse!!!!
how you all can twist this.
In 1948 the United Nations was formed. The United States of America is a member of the U.N. These members wrote and agreed upon the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS for each nation which was a member to abide by.
Now before you all twist and turn the meaning to this HUMAN Right think back 62 years ago if any of you are my age. ONLY men and women were allowed to marry. Everyone knew that marriage was between a man and a woman. No one had to define marriage for any of us.
A family is classed through this document as the NATURAL and FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT of society.
Article 16 of the United Nations states:
(1) "Men and women of full age, without limitation due to RACE, NATIONALITY, or RELIGION have the right to marry and to found a family.
Do you understand this so far. At 18 kids were called men and women. If someone under 18 wanted to get married, they had to have their parents consent to marry. Now we (the man and the woman) could not be stopped from marrying a person of a different race , nationality or religion. Nothing stopped us from marrying who we want to.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intended spouses.
No body could force them to marry who they didn't want to. Nobody had to pay for a bride,
(3) The family is the NATURAL and FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT of society and IS entitled to PROTECTION by society and the State.
We, the United States of America, is a member of the U.N.. Members are to abide by these UNIVERSAL HUMAN Rights. Marriage is not a civil right; it is a human right.
This document defines marriage very clearly and it can be used to stop gay marriage since the United States of America are members of the U.N. I stand firm. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman since the beginning of our country.
of the UN, we are not, as a country, ruled and governed by the UN.
We had brillant forefathers that wrote into effect our country with what has come to be the definite law of the land, our Constitution. Many countries around the world would kill to have a Constitution such as ours! Many do. (We are in the midst of two wars right now where countries are seeking human/civil rights, you will note that both countries are members of the UN).
more and more every day. There are people who will help you understand about our forms of governing if you ask them. I do ask; and at times i get help.
I wrote one of our fine Congressmen and asked if we were members of the UN would we be obligated to follow their rules of marriage concerning human rights. His legislative assistant sent me this information.
Significance
In the preamble, governments commit themselves and their peoples to measures to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Even though not formally legally binding, The Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. (my thoughts--here is a family of laws that the US adopted in 1948. They have been in our family; the US for 54 years.) It has serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national instutions PROTECTING and PROMOTING human rights.
Legal effect
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the words "fundemantal freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which Is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many international lawyers, in addition, believe the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a Powerful Tool in applying Dipolmatic and Moral Pressure to governmants that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Confrence on Human Rights advised that it "constitutes an Obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The Declaration has served as the foundation for two Binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and principles of the Declaration elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and human beings who appeal to its principle for the protection of their recognized human rights. (my thoughts--now as I try to understand this, our Constitution is a binding document for all people. So what does our preamble to the constitution do? Isn't it suppose to be defining certain words used in our constitution so we can better understand what our Constitution stands for? Can gays and lesbians appeal to the Un for a quick decision as to redefining the word "marriage", maybe they will change the meaning of one man and one woman since some people in our society wants to change the laws that have existed way before they were even born if our Supreme Courts decision don't agree with them. I don't make the laws; I just obey them.)
Orginally the Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law. Nonetheless, it is still a Potent Instrument used to apply Moral and Diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration's principles. In fact, in 1968, the United Nations International Conference on Human Rights agree that the Declaration "constitutes an Obligation for the members of the international community" to Protect and Preserve the rights of citizenry.
So doumeki please stop making people think I am ignorant. States are willfully disobeying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but that doesn't make them right.One day they will be caught, the same as anyone else, and then they will have to pay for the Supreme Courts decision of going against the Universal document for all people in this universe.
office responded to your request.
However, where is 'marriage' enumerated in either doctrine? Civil rights of course is, which is of course, the heart of the matter of gay marriage.
There are several countries who are members of the UN who allow gay marriage. I do believe you yourself asked me if they were.
Therefore, that argument is flawed.
argument is not flawed. You sure said the right word. These discussions are arguments. Way is that. Why aren't we discussing truths?
there are no truths about this. Every argument regarding this comes down to opinion and belief. If there truly was a truth - something that every person acknowledged, despite religious/secular belief, such as killing is bad - then there really wouldn't be a discussion about it.
You truly believe that SSM is wrong. I truly believe that it's not. There is no common ground between the two, therefore there is no universal truth regarding it. I would assume that you believe that murder is wrong. I believe murder is wrong. I'm taking from your posts that you are religious. I am not. There is a common ground, therefore, it is universally acknowledged that killing is wrong.
Because of this, there is no right or wrong in this argument. It's all based on individual understanding. I can see things from your point of view, but it seems that you are unable to see things from mine. There is no way to reach some sort of an understanding because of this, so we have to agree to disagree. In the end, the ones who makes the ultimate decision regarding it will be the Supreme Court of the United States.
Fair enough?
Based on the OP's marriage is a contract, please explain how gay marriage is not actually giving more rights to gays. Everyone of legal age, etc, has the right to marry already. That being a fact, gay marriage is actually giving more rights to gays than the rest of us have. This has nothing to do with love, it has to do with the OP's premise that marriage is a contract.
that marriage is a contract, that is a fact. Many states do NOT permit gays to marry because they chose to disregard the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Allowing gays to marry is not giving them more rights it is affording them the rights that the rest of us enjoy under the equal protection clause.
That marriage has nothing to do with love, is correct, in a legal sense. However, love is the impetus that pushes us to enter into the marriage contract. Love has everything to do with tolerance. Love has everything to do with accepting others that may be different from us. Love has everything to do respect. Love has everything to do with human dignity.