The proper Constitutionalist views on abortions & same-sex issues

[Krugerrand]

Good post. However, I would clarify that atheists can can marry. While for many faiths it has religious significance, marriage is more of a social construct.

Cynanthrope;
Marriage is an institution between God and individuals.

 

[DamianTV]

Marriage is an agreement between two concenting people. Doesnt need religion or faith or government. Do birds have government? How about religion? Do birds fly to church every sunday? If they did, what would they have done before our civilization, make their own church out of sticks and stones and hire Prior Rabbit to pronounce them legally married? Easy answer. NO. Can thank Insurance Companies for fucking this one up for everyone.

 

[TinCanToNA]

I think your bird analogy is a bit much, as I've never seen a bird trying to access their 'loved one' in the hospital.

Marriage in its applications is a contract of varying components, including economic, social, and others as desired. Unfortunately, it is up to the government to issue this contract, instead of just to enforce them as you would want from a standard minarchist contract law arrangement. This means the government controls who is allowed to seek what social or economic commitments from whom, and so forth.

In short, government involvement is generally bad, but the degree of government involvement is a matter of discussion. Moving the matter to the states is one aspect, but removing it from government entirely except for contract enforcement is probably the best solution.

 

[Pennsylvania]

1) What is the proper Constitutionalist view on abortion? Should it be prohibited completely because it's the abortion of a fetus or should it be left to the states to decide via the 10th Amendment? Or, was the ruling of Roe v. Wade justified & nothing should be done to reverse or modify the ruling?

Imagine a situation where slavery is still prevalent in many states. All of a sudden, a local court case challenging the legitimacy of slavery makes it past the states, all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rules that slavery is a violation of fundamental human rights and is now nationally illegal. Now imagine that you were a slave until that ruling. What position are you going to take? Are you going to side with the constitutionalist who believes that Alabama or Mississippi has every right to enforce your enslavement? Or do you side with the Supreme Court, who has acknowledged your right to freedom, but happens to be a branch of the federal government?

My guess is this: if you were that slave, you wouldn't give two hoots about what level of government your enslavement was being enforced by. You'd recognize that it doesn't matter whether a Nation or a State is the one keeping the chains on you. You'd recognize that that court decision was currently the only thing between you and further enslavement. You'd say screw "states rights".

2) Should the government be involved in the same-sex marriage issue whatsoever?

Marriage is nothing more than a promise between two people. A serious promise no doubt. But it is a strictly contractual arrangment. It does not require a third party.

3) How about same-sex adoptions? Should individual states be allowed to prohibit/legalize same-sex adoptions via the 10th Amendment or should the govt. not be involved with same-sex adoptions & leave it to the private sector?

Leave it to the private sector, and let it have our encouragement.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

1- Abortion: We all have the right to life. We are alive in the womb (ask an OB/GYN or a fetal surgeon). Contraception is widely available and much cheaper. Abortion is unconstitutional and unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is also BIG BIG business and I don't think it's going away anytime soon.

2- Same Sex Marriage: The state should allow anyone to marry anyone (same sex or not). The churches? That's a different story. If Christians believe gayness is a sin and that marriage is a union of a male and a female only, that's perfectly right. But we have a 1st amendment and we shouldn't ban gays/lesbians if they want to marry each other in court and share assets/benefits, etc.

3- Same Sex Adoptions: The fear behind this is sexual abuse of the child. It is a legitimate concern, however, after working in courts/hospitals and seeing dozens of child abuse cases, I found out that most times the offenders are heterosexual. A straight person is not less likely to abuse or molest a child. They won't impose their homosexuality in a child, in the same way a straight parent can't make a gay child heterosexual.