HRC: Same Sex Marriage Should be a Constitutional Right

[jmdrake]

How about a right to boink the Whitehouse interns?

Maybe Hillary wants to have a first lady to go along with her intern.

 

[jmdrake]

I think Man A should marry both Woman A and Woman B.

Thread winner!

 

[jmdrake]

This!

 

[jmdrake]

14th amendment section 1 from wikipedia:



Suppose Man A wants to marry Woman B.
Also suppose that Woman A also wants to marry Woman B.

If Man A is allowed to marry Woman B but Woman A is not, than the law applies differently to Man A than it applies to Woman A. That would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

Suppose man A wants to marry woman B but cannot because woman B is his daughter. But man C can marry woman B. So man A is denied equal protection under the law using your analysis. And don't say that's different because it simply isn't. Of course the truth is that woman A can already marry woman B in any state in the union. She just won't get state recognition. If man A marries woman A and B they can all be arrested and go to jail in many states. The same was true back in the day if man A was black and woman B was white or vice versa. Those were true marriage bans. What happens today is society in most states granting extra benefits to one union versus another. Stefan Molyneaux explains why society actually has a greater interest in one form of marriage over other even though he's quite pro gay.

 

[CaptUSA]

Right. This story is not about the issue, but how Hillary is using this issue.

She is using it as a barometer of "growth". She is trying to appeal to a younger electorate by saying she's still "evolving" towards more acceptable positions.

Remember, EVERYTHING Hillary says or does is for political reasons. Everything.

 

[otherone]

Right. This story is not about the issue, but how Hillary is using this issue.

It's a non-issue.

 

[jmdrake]

Right. This story is not about the issue, but how Hillary is using this issue.

She is using it as a barometer of "growth". She is trying to appeal to a younger electorate by saying she's still "evolving" towards more acceptable positions.

Remember, EVERYTHING Hillary says or does is for political reasons. Everything.

She's following the Obama playbook. He initially was against same sex marriage "officially" because he didn't want to lose the votes of black conservatives.

 

[Valli6]

legal unions and gay "marriage"

I never thought twice about government being involved in marriage till I heard Ron Paul speak about the issue. It was then that I learned that the whole point of requiring a marriage license was to ensure that neither party had a venereal disease!

Having been raised Catholic, I grew up with the understanding that marriage is a sacrament, involving a particular religious ceremony - a thing totally disconnected from law and government. I don’t know if other religions have “sacraments” or some equivalent (do they?), but marriages are typically performed by some sort of “ordained” person.

To me - this is what drives home the point that government can no more confer marriage on you, than it can baptize you, confirm you, perform your last rites or die for your sins. It’s only in relatively modern times that government involved itself in marriage - collecting license fees and providing special income tax treatment to persons, depending on their marital status.

Government should cease all involvement in marriage-related issues - special treatment and otherwise. Any legislation must stick to providing the same legal rights - property, inheritance, child custody, etc to a couple who wants to legally define themselves as a union of two people. We are all free to hold our own ceremonies and sign the legal contracts to make the union legally complete.

Why any gay couple feels the need to imitate the behaviors and traditions of heteros is beyond me! If the legal union is what matters most, why are some filing complaints over party-related frivolities (i.e. cakes and flowers)? If they wish to label themselves “married” they need to accept the fact that no one can be forced to agree that they’ve received a sacrament from God.

Government must not pretend to have the authority to define what a sacrament is - or to hand them out.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

How about we add a constitutional amendment that gives all individuals freedom and the government stays out of everybody's business?

 

[Sam I am]

Nothing in the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to marry, be it heterosexual or homosexual, making the question of what is or is not allowed state to state moot. At the time of the amendment's passage, marriage itself was understood to be a private institution or sectarian ritual, much like baptism or communion, thus not a matter of law.

And the 14th amendment protects individual rights, not the privilege claims of a group that they need to be treated as a protected class. Gay advocates want a government privilege (a government marriage license) extended to them as a group as if it was an inalienable right, based on collectivist claims of being a civil rights category (which is itself disputed, since half of us do not agree they are born that way).

The 14th amendment says that you can't deny to any person equal protection of the laws.

that refers to ALL of the laws, and not just an enumerated few.

It doesn't matter which laws are not extended equally.

If the law said that men are allowed to eat cheeseburgers, but women are not, it would still be in violation of the 14th amendment, despite the fact that the word "cheeseburger" appears nowhere in the constitution.

By contrast If the laws were changed to extend marriage rights to nobody, even straight couples, that would also satisfy the 14th amendment.

 

[Sam I am]

Having been raised Catholic, I grew up with the understanding that marriage is a sacrament, involving a particular religious ceremony - a thing totally disconnected from law and government. I don’t know if other religions have “sacraments” or some equivalent (do they?), but marriages are typically performed by some sort of “ordained” person.

To me - this is what drives home the point that government can no more confer marriage on you, than it can baptize you, confirm you, perform your last rites or die for your sins. It’s only in relatively modern times that government involved itself in marriage - collecting license fees and providing special income tax treatment to persons, depending on their marital status.

If you go back far enough marriage was originally a way for families in the ruling class to improve relations and consolidate power, and it was less region-based than it is now.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If you go back far enough marriage was originally a way for families in the ruling class to improve relations and consolidate power, and it was less region-based than it is now.

If you go back even further, then you'll find that marriage has always been a structure to order sexual conduct, child rearing, etc. Even if it's polygamy, it's still a structure. Men and women getting together is even more rudimentary than political purposes.

You and your progressive brethren like to think that government has to have a hand in these things, but these things happen naturally. Suggesting that government be involved in "gay marriage" is as unnatural and ludicrous as the conservatives saying government is needed to uphold families. People gravitate naturally toward these things without your social engineering, privilege, etc