Same Sex Marriage – A Question of Constitutionality

[MrFungus420]

Re: Same Sex Marriage – A Question of Constitutionality

Maybe this doesn't seem like a big deal at face value, but let’s start demanding for a second that everyone must have the right to be involved in every institution. For this example, I'll use the Congress of the United States. Congress, like marriage, is an institution, an 'exclusionary institution' at that. Are you saying it is a civil rights issue to say let me be a representative from, let's say Nebraska? (Note: I’m not from Nebraska) I mean, I've got tons of opinions on legislative matters and could clearly express them with probably millions of other Americans. For that matter, let’s just knock out elections all together because since it's a civil right to be a member of an institution, it is a civil right for me to be a member of Congress. Would this be inefficient to have a million+ person Congress? Most likely, but if being in the institution of marriage is a civil right, so is this.

The problem with your comparison of institutions is that you are using two entirely different uses of the word "institution" and trying to compare them.

"in·sti·tu·tion
n.
1. The act of instituting.
2.
a. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.
b. Informal One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.
3.
a. An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.
b. The building or buildings housing such an organization.
(from www.thefreedictionary.com)

We can see that the word "institution" is equally appropriate for marriage and Congress. However, we can also see that they are entirely different things. So, you're basically comparing apples and oranges.

A marriage would be better described as a legal contract with certain additional benifits granted by the government and legal system.

From this the obvious response is going to be relating this to the ban on interracial marriage (blacks cannot marry whites just as whites cannot marry blacks), but I must point out that the difference between the two must be pointed out. I must point out that I do not see how banning same sex marriage is in anyway promoting the supremacy of men over women or vise versa in the same way not allowing blacks to marry whites was promoting the supremacy of whites over blacks.

Well, you didn't use your analogy correctly. The first part of it has white and heterosexual, and black and homosexual as the points of correspondence. The second part tries to link race and gender.

It's "promoting the supremacy" of heterosexuals over homosexuals.

 

[MrFungus420]

Re: Same Sex Marriage – A Question of Constitutionality

I must disagree with you, creating same sex marriage through this process is hurting someone. It is hurting everyone under its' jurisdiction. Allowing the federal government to use powers that it is not even granted under the loosest interpretation of our laws is clearly hurts the people the government is responsible for.

You view it as creating something; same-sex marriage.

I view it as merely removing an illegitimate and discriminatory restriction on marriage.

 

[Axismaster]

You view it as creating something; same-sex marriage.

I view it as merely removing an illegitimate and discriminatory restriction on marriage.

You know, that is a point. Restrictions on gay marriage affect the lives of other people for the negative, but gay marriage affects us straight people in no other way than that it simply is happening. I don't see why that is so bad, even if it contradicts your religious beliefs. A lot of things are legal that contradict my personal religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean something should be done just for my sake.

 

[goligoth]

You know, that is a point. Restrictions on gay marriage affect the lives of other people for the negative, but gay marriage affects us straight people in no other way than that it simply is happening. I don't see why that is so bad, even if it contradicts your religious beliefs. A lot of things are legal that contradict my personal religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean something should be done just for my sake.

yep....I agree.

 

[mike49]

Someday this will end up in front of the court.

A communities right to legislate morality, as they see it vs. an individuals right in the pursuit of happiness.

Does one segment of the society have a right to stop another segment from happiness, as they view happiness?

What if a brother and sister wanted to be married? How about multiple partners?

I'm sure the Court would not have to answer all of these questions at once.

It could go either way. I would imagine that a lot of sympathy would be had on this court for Gay marriage. Lawrence v. Texas comes to mind. How could the court rule in such a way as Lawrence and then not allow that same couple to marry? Certainly they could not back away from Lawrence in the future, thats not something a court re-visits once decided in favor of the that type of activity. That would be like re-visiting contraception. It's not like Roe v. Wade, which is re-visited.

On the basis of the Lawrence decision I would have to conclude that the court would vote for Gay Marriage.