Does the constitution Restrict states from Banning Gay Marriage?

[erowe1]

Indded. Any system that doesn't exclude certain citizens would be an improvement from the current one.

So, you mean a system that just defined every person in existence as married?

 

[TheGrinch]

No it wouldn't. There would still be people who don't fit that definition of "married."

Any 2 adults who volluntarily enter into a contract to share assets and benefits should be covered. The government shouldn't define "married" which is a religious institution, so I don't get why you act like it's a foregone conclusion that a law can't be written that doesn't include "traditional" marriage.

Again, per Rand: "I'm not going to change who I am or what I believe in. I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults—I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

 

[TheGrinch]

So, you mean a system that just defined every person in existence as married?

No, any two individuals who wish to enter into a contract to share assets, benefits, consequences, etc.

Last time I'm gonig to say it before I exit the thread, government's role is to enforce contracts, not to define a religious institution.

 

[erowe1]

Any 2 adults who volluntarily enter into a contract to share assets and benefits should be covered.

So you would exclude all those who don't fit that definition.

 

[James Madison]

I knew this was coming, and I addressed it in my next paragraph (read Rand's compromise as well). Like almost all here, I would greatly prefer that, but until we get rid of our current system, the next best thing is to not be discriminatory with the tax system and access to family health benefits.

So, the 'next best thing' is to create yet another class of government-dependents?

 

[jmdrake]

Not spefically, but I do know in some cases it can be desirable and in some cases burdensome, but my ONLY point is that if one volluntary union qualifies, then all volluntary unions should have that same choice, or else it's discriminatory.

It matters not if it's not always desirable, one can always not have the state sanction their union, but the point is that the current system is exclusive, regardless of it's merits or lack thereof.

Study it. Same sex couples are likely to come out worse under the arrangement as they are more likely to make the same amount of money. (The "benefit" only exists if you have disparate incomes which men and women are more likely to have.) So what you have is a system designed specifically around assumptions of heterosexual couples that people want to impose on same sex couples in the name of "fairness" which will still be inherently unfair. The same sex couples will get the "choice" of their taxes going from bad to worse. And this is being done in the name of helping them? It's not a move in the right direction for anyone. It's a stupid liberal gimmick that moves the country in the wrong direction for all of the wrong reasons. Just the other day someone posted a study that stupidly claimed that the reason there are worse health outcomes among gays is because they can't get married. Note the study only compared gay couples to married heterosexual couples. No comparisons between married heterosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples or between gay couples in states/countries where they can get married with couples who couldn't. Start smelling the agenda. This isn't about "fairness" despite what you may have been led to believe.

 

[sailingaway]

My personal belief is it is a state issue under the Constitution. Most states had laws against it both when the Constitution was passed and when the 14th Amendment was passed and there is no question those were not considered to be impacted.

However, I voted against Prop 8 because that would have been ME saying they shouldn't have the right to be married, not the Constitution (even though I thought the interpretation of law was wrong by the court it would have overturned). I think Ron's solution is absolutely the right one though, government shouldn't be in it at all. I think religious people don't want their religious sacraments defined by government according to government's not their own, moral views, and I think they have point on this. On the other hand, I think a ton of churches have no problem with marriage as a sacrament for gays, and those churches and people who want to get married shouldn't have THEIR beliefs dictated by government either.

So no, as a strict constructionist I do not think the Constitution bans it at the federal level and leaves it to the states. But I voted against Prop 8 because I don't think the government SHOULD ban it, regardless of the fact that I don't think the government should be in the marriage defining business, in any event.

 

[jmdrake]

No, any two individuals who wish to enter into a contract to share assets, benefits, consequences, etc.

Any two individuals can do that in any state of the union and such contracts are enforced.

Last time I'm gonig to say it before I exit the thread, government's role is to enforce contracts, not to define a religious institution.

Get the federal government out of the picture, convince those agitating for "marriage rights" to draft wills, durable powers of attorney, etc, and make sure those contracts get enforced. Problem solved.

 

[TheGrinch]

Study it. Same sex couples are likely to come out worse under the arrangement as they are more likely to make the same amount of money. (The "benefit" only exists if you have disparate incomes which men and women are more likely to have.) So what you have is a system designed specifically around assumptions of heterosexual couples that people want to impose on same sex couples in the name of "fairness" which will still be inherently unfair. The same sex couples will get the "choice" of their taxes going from bad to worse. And this is being done in the name of helping them? It's not a move in the right direction for anyone. It's a stupid liberal gimmick that moves the country in the wrong direction for all of the wrong reasons. Just the other day someone posted a study that stupidly claimed that the reason there are worse health outcomes among gays is because they can't get married. Note the study only compared gay couples to married heterosexual couples. No comparisons between married heterosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples or between gay couples in states/countries where they can get married with couples who couldn't. Start smelling the agenda. This isn't about "fairness" despite what you may have been led to believe.

Yes, I get it, the tax code sucks, but the point is that they can determine if it will be more of a benefit or burden to have the state sanction that marriage. It's not as if getting married means you're required to have the state sanction it, if it's not desirable.

This isn't so much a matter of the state recognizing it, I doubt that gay couples care more about a marriage certificate than what that certificate means for their situation.

 

[TheGrinch]

So, the 'next best thing' is to create yet another class of government-dependents?

Like talking to a brick wall.

Yes, if you're going to afford choice to some, you have to afford it to all. It is not my preferred option, but it is certainly better than government-sanctioned exclusion that undermines Supreme Court rulings.

Anyways, have a nice day. I'm through with this stupid ass debate, when you all know that my preferred option is the same as your own.

 

[jmdrake]

My personal belief is it is a state issue under the Constitution. Most states had laws against it both when the Constitution was passed and when the 14th Amendment was passed and there is no question those were not considered to be impacted.

However, I voted against Prop 8 because that would have been ME saying they shouldn't have the right to be married, not the Constitution (even though I thought the interpretation of law was wrong by the court it would have overturned). I think Ron's solution is absolutely the right one though, government shouldn't be in it at all. I think religious people don't want their religious sacraments defined by government according to government's not their own, moral views, and I think they have point on this. On the other hand, I think a ton of churches have no problem with marriage as a sacrament for gays, and those churches and people who want to get married shouldn't have THEIR beliefs dictated by government either.

So no, as a strict constructionist I do not think the Constitution bans it at the federal level and leaves it to the states. But I voted against Prop 8 because I don't think the government SHOULD ban it, regardless of the fact that I don't think the government should be in the marriage defining business, in any event.

+rep! I put the best part (IMO) in bold. Changing the discussion from gay marriage pro/con to one of federal government in marriage yes/no is a way to advance the liberty agenda while bringing social conservatives on board. So-cons aren't stupid, though they may be in denial. It's clear the country is trending towards accepting gay marriage. If so-cons don't want the government forcing them to accept a definition of marriage they find objectionable, they need to get the government out of marriage while its still a viability. And those thinking we can expand the federal definition of marriage, then move to get rid of it altogether, are kidding themselves.

 

[erowe1]

This isn't so much a matter of the state recognizing it, I doubt that gay couples care more about a marriage certificate than what that certificate means for their situation.

That might be part of it. But I think it's more about them not liking the fact that some people don't approve of what they do and wanting to get the state to take their side as if it represents societal approval.

 

[TheGrinch]

So you would exclude all those who don't fit that definition.

What? No, they exclude themselves by not entering into a contract. How is this hard to understand?

I'm really done now, some of you need to get the wax out of your ears and stop playing gotcha. I've made myself abundantly clear.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, I get it, the tax code sucks, but the point is that they can determine if it will be more of a benefit or burden to have the state sanction that marriage. It's not as if getting married means you're required to have the state sanction it, if it's not desirable.

This isn't so much a matter of the state recognizing it, I doubt that gay couples care more about a marriage certificate than what that certificate means for their situation.

Correction. What they think the marriage certificate will mean. They are being sold a bill of goods. Legal snake oil. And sadly you're helping to sell it. Many will run out and get a marriage certificate without first checking the full implications. And if/when this goes through there will be no decoupling the federal government from marriage as there will be a new constituency that believes they are "benefiting" from it. It's a trap.

 

[TheGrinch]

That might be part of it. But I think it's more about them not liking the fact that some people don't approve of what they do and wanting to get the state to take their side as if it represents societal approval.

Doubtful, my guess is it has far more to do with a double standard. None of us like it when corporations get preferential treatment, why should they like it?

 

[jmdrake]

What? No, they exclude themselves by not entering into a contract. How is this hard to understand?

Ummm....you are the one not understanding. You gave a definition, 2 consenting adults. That leaves out polygamists (who still can get arrested). So your "solution", even if it improved things for gays (which is debatable), would actually exacerbate the problem for other groups. Get the government out. That's the way forward. No need to waste time of a fake "solution".

 

[TheGrinch]

Ummm....you are the one not understanding. You gave a definition, 2 consenting adults. That leaves out polygamists (who still can get arrested). So your "solution", even if it improved things for gays (which is debatable), would actually exacerbate the problem for other groups. Get the government out. That's the way forward. No need to waste time of a fake "solution".

Okay, if you want to reduce this to semantics, then I'll clarify: any number of consenting adults can enter into a contract, flat taxes for all. There, everyone happy now? Have a nice day.

 

[erowe1]

What? No, they exclude themselves by not entering into a contract. How is this hard to understand?

I'm really done now, some of you need to get the wax out of your ears and stop playing gotcha. I've made myself abundantly clear.

So government marriage is something that any adults can enter by choice or not, and those who do not choose to do that which "marriage" is defined to entail forego the benefits the government attaches to it. That's exactly what we have now.

If the objection raised in the OP means that states should be prevented from treating married people differently than unmarried people, then changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples wouldn't do anything at all to rectify that. The state would still be treating married people differently than unmarried people.

You have made yourself clear. I don't have any problem understanding your position. I'm just trying to explain to you why it's wrong. Try not to be so closed-minded and dogmatic.

 

[Kelly.]

Kudos to you for doing that. I hadn't ever thought of it back when I got married, but I wish we didn't get a license.

Hypothetically, I think it could make a difference. If the IRS knew that you weren't legally married they wouldn't let you file jointly. But it's not like you're going to come out and tell them.

as i understand it, the marriage license is a state document and is never demanded by the IRS. you can file jointly without being married, as the IRS doesnt ask for proof.

 

[erowe1]

as i understand it, the marriage license is a state document and is never demanded by the IRS. you can file jointly without being married, as the IRS doesnt ask for proof.

It's definitely not demanded under normal circumstances. I don't know if they would demand it in an audit though, especially if there were someone they had some reason to think didn't have one.