What is the Consitutional justification for same-sex marriage?
443374
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down laws against miscegination, because "marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." This right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but the 9th Amendment specifically states that rights not mentioned are still held by the people.\n\nSince marriage is a fundamental right, the state should have a compelling reason to deny that right to any particular group. For instance, it can ban incestual marriage, because it causes birth defects and it is impossible to tell if there is some sort of coercion involved. There is no compelling reason to ban gay marriage. It does not harm the community nor does it harm children nor does it affect churches' ability to protect marriage, since any law allowing gay marriage would not require churches to recognize them. If there is no compelling reason to ban it, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as well as the fundamental nature of the right to marry, require that same sex marriages be allowed.
609496
"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place -- although not marriage," she wrote.\n\nThe single-subject rule in the state constitution "protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote,"
1160041
With the separation of church and state, can the government even legislate what marriage is??  "Marriage" is a religious ceremony to unite 2 people.\n\nIf the government wants to have marriage be a lawful union, then they have to come up with an unbias reason (not based in religious belief) that gays should not marry.  Because it is stated to be wrong in the bible will not fly in a court of law.  Anytime that someone tries to pass a law about marriage being between a man and a woman, it gets struck down as unconstitutional because lawmakers can't come up with a good enough reason other than it's in the bible.  Thank God that someone can still look at the law without pulling the bible into the mix.\n\nI seriously think that no one ever expects the law to pass, and it is only done to make "friends" with the "moral majority".  If the Christian Right is happy, the funds keep going into the reelection accounts.  They can say "well, we tried".
1078447
I have no earthly idea why people keep insisting on defining marriage!  Why is this such a big deal?  There are so many things that are truly imporant that we can put our energy into solving rather than someones desire to marry someone of the same sex.  You certainly wont stop them from having a relationship.  What are you doing that the government will decide to ban next?  Frankly, whatever goes on in my underpants is none of the governments business.  All of those who are in support of BIG GOVERNMENT telling you how to conduct your private lives had better watch out, you may get more than what you bargained for.  Obviously, since this question keeps coming up over and over, there are more people out there that have little else to do but worry about this nonsense.  If this has to do with Christianity, divorce, partner swapping, adultery, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, etc. have already made a mockery of marriage so who cares if homosexuals want a part of it.  I think there is something in that big Bible that you all are thumping that says that we have all have free will....Please stop trying to legislate morality and personal decision that have absolutly nothing to do with you.  If you dont want to marry someone of the same sex, DONT.  And no, I am not gay, I am just not so hypocritical that I feel I need to impose my lifestyle on others.
1099672
When hate-mongering 'christian' bigots stop campaigning against basic equal rights.  \nWhen you, and others like you, start demanding that your representatives remove all barriers to two people in love being able to marry.\nWhen New York upholds the founding principle of the separation of church and state this country was founded on.\n\nIn short, hopefully soon!  :o)
625476
No, there is nothing wrong with it.  If a gay couple is in love, they deserve every right a hetero couple has. Marriage rights are exactly that, rights. And ever American is entitled to them. Some liberals even buy the conservative rhetoric against gay marriage. A common conservative tactic against liberal proposals is to convince the public that it would be  devastating financially. Similar arguments were made about abolishing slavery, workers unions, raising the minimum wage, and environmental protections. Gays represent about 5% of the population. Considering the number of hetero couples that get married and divorced, and the overall makeup of the economy, including the hundreds of billions spent on wars, corporate welfare, social programs, and numerous other government programs, the impact would be minimal and the economy would adjust without serious consequences.\n\nIt has more to do with religous idealogy and bigotry - they often go hand in hand. It's not only the idea of a gay couple being together they don't like, or the pretense that it would somehow cheapen their marriage. Along with marriage rights they would have the right to adopt, which also goes against their personal/religous beliefs.
441355
The government should not be in the business of deciding who people can get married to, barring very compelling reasons. Certainly, the government shouldn't be discriminating on the basis of gender. "You can marry him, because he's male, but you can't marry her, because she's female." \n\nThe Supreme Court threw that kind of logic out 30 years ago in in Loving v. Virginia (1967) when the states tried to apply it to race. The states tried to argue that it wasn't racial discrimination, because blacks could only marry blacks, and whites could only marry whites, so it applied equally to all races. It was nonsense 30 years ago and it's nonsense today.\n\nThe problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions is that they are not the same as marriage. Even if they happen to provide the same rights as marriage in the home state, those rights are nor portable.\n\nA married (heterosexual) couple could go to any other of the US states or any US federal territory, as well as many other countries, and all of their legal rights and privileges for being married automatically go with them. If they are married in one state, they are married in every state. That's what the Constitution guarantees with the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the Privileges and Immunities clauses.\n\nBut, if a homosexual couple gets a civil-union , then as soon as they leave their home state, in 47 other states they have no rights whatsoever. Civil unions are not recognized as marriages, nor are domestic partnerships. What's more, civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't even recognized as convertible, even though they have the same purpose -- to grant marriage-like rights to people who don't happen to fit the majority paradigm.\n\nThe question shouldn't be: do we think gay people should be able to get married?  Because if you think that's really the question, you should have no objection to two straight women getting married, just for the tax benefits and other legal advantages. Men and women get married all the time, without any romantic connection, just for the legal benefits that marriage provides (health insurance, survivor rights, community property rights, tax breaks, etc.). \n\nSo, if the issue was really sexual orientation, two straight people of the same gender should be allowed to get married. \n\nThe issue is that some people just like being prejudiced, and some people just like imposing their religious doctrine on others. And sadly, those people happen to be in the 51% majority at the moment. So, it's might-makes-right bullying.\n\nAny single consenting adult should be allowed to choose to marry any other single consenting adult. Neither gender nor race should have anything to do with it.
585427
Absolutely it enforces one religion's viewpoint upon everyone. And how far we go in allowing that is a valid question.\n\nLaws protecting children, and preventing marriage to children, are for the benefits of children. That is a non-religious interest that outweighs any specific religion's belief that marriage to 12-year-olds should be OK. The secular (non-religious) reason outweighs any religious preference, and the burden is slight. So the general rule (no child marriages) still holds. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is absolutely no threat to that. \n\nPolygamy/polyamoury imposes significant legal complications, relating to property division and taxes. Personally, I don't think voluntary (voluntary, not compelled) polyamoury should be allowed as long as the adults involved have taken sufficient steps to clearly define what happens to their property in the event of divorce or death. Why? Because the default rules are set up for two-person marriages, and the default rules don't work in multi-person marriages. Remember, opening up marriage to same-sex couples is still monogamy, and doesn't require changing the rules to allow more than two in the marriage. \n\nHomosexual marriage doesn't suffer either of these problems. The rules for two-people marriage work just as well regardless of the gender of those involved. And if an adult man or woman is capable of deciding who they want to marry, then the gender (or race) of that other adult is none of the government's business. \n\nWhy shouldn't the government get involved in the decision? Because the gender of the other spouse has absolutely no effect on any secular (non-religious) interests or laws, and prohibiting same-sex marriage does not serve any legitimate secular government interest. Every current law and every current social policy supporting monogamy works just as well regardless of the gender or race of the people involved in the marriage.\n\nIf certain religions don't want to support homosexual (or interracial) marriage, that's absolutely their choice. Nothing can compel a minister to perform a religious marriage ceremony that he/she doesn't think is valid according to his/her religious beliefs. \n\nBut the state or federal governments should not be enforcing religious beliefs about what adult voluntary monogamous marriages are valid based on race or gender. The country has figured out the first half of the obvious truth, and it's just a matter of time for the other half.
1040814
Nothing wrong with a civil union between any two consenting adults. The word "marriage" is a religious term describing the union of one man and one women, and just because gay people want to form a union shouldn't change the meaning of the word.
428820
I beleive that if the supreme court decides, (not sure about the NEW supreme court or future) they would choose FOR same sex marriages. Popularity isn't the issue here. Honestly coast to coast right now if people voted in a private booth for or against civil rights, sadly I don't think our country would choose it. It ws decided because it was the right thing, dispite the prejudiceness of the country. Straight marriages are not going to crumble because of it. It would remove one argument of gay sin as sex -when married. It would give us equal rights (no special rights) for property and visitation (upon sick or dying) and the other 1700 rights and privilages given straight married couple automatically imposed or implied when legally married. I beleive I'll see the day. At least the hope of it keeps me going and the faith in our legal system.
1085187
No, I don't think homosexuals should have equal rights.  I don't support gay marriage, or homosexuality in general.  It confuses our children and has a negative impact on society.  If God wanted two men or two women to be together, he wouldn't have given men a penis and women a vagina.  I'm a firm believer that nobody is born gay, but is either raised or decides to be gay.  So I think it is something you can control and if you make the decision to be gay, you shouldn't be demanding equal rights.
139746
If marriage is a "status" bestowed upon a couple by the state, then the state denying someone based on sexual orientation better be able to stand up to constitutional muster. Without going into a long dissertation of equal protection/fundamental rights issue, I, professionally, cannot see how, discrimination based on an immutable characteristic could withstand a const'al challenge. \n\nNow, personally, I could care less what two consenting adults do. Besides, How can it be any worse than heterosexual marriage rates, which are roughly 50%? \n\nAnd everyone that thinks it's a "slippery slope" to concerns they find abhorrent, remember, at one time it was thought inconceivable that women or blacks could vote, etc. because of all the damage such rights would cause. Looking around, I fail to see any damage from removing the voting disenfranchisment that women and blacks had to endure. So, the slippery slope argument is really, just a knee jerk irrational reaction.\n\nAnd, additionally, for those that start spewing the crap about marriage being a covenant with god, STFU. It's a status deigned BY THE STATE, not your boogey man in the clouds.
527126
Okay- I did a Public Speaking presentation on same-sex marriage. (BTW, not only homosexuals want to get married to people of their own gender, bisexuals would like to do it too; if you use "same-sex" marriage, it's more professional, since that's what the news media has termed it recently.)  In the sources, I've put all the internet sources I used.  I'm not sure if this will help, since you didn't specify if it could be an online newspaper or if it had to be a print newspaper.  Good luck!\n\nNOTE: For the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (last link), I used Articles: 1, 6, 7, 12, and especially 16\n\n(PS- I can't remember where I found it, but I remember one of the pros was that married people pay more taxes, so that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry they'd be charged under spousal income tax laws and more money would flow into the government.)
607353
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
940385
A same sex union forms a part of the framework of civil unions. Marriage is a more religious name for the same thing. There are a few differences depending on where the law exists, but essentially they are the same.
833313
The Christian point of view varies, though fundamentalists won't tell you that.  My Church supports gay marriage, so do many others. \n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com\n\nPS In response to the person who answered directly above my answer.  Your answer is meaningless of course, if the Bible is not really divine and not the central foundation of Christianity.\n\nThe canon of the Bible was not formalized until the Council of Carthage -- when it affirmed a resolution of the synod of Hippo recognizing a group of books drawn together and claimed as divine by Bishop Anathasius.  Anathasius did not even coin the word canon until 327  and the Council of Carthage did not formalize the list approved by Hippo until the 390s, and then sent it on to "the Church across the sea" (Rome) for the Pope's approval.\n\nThere are no full copies of what is now considered scripture until the 4th century.  There are two copies from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) together with hundreds of manuscript fragments of various forms (Papyrus and Vellum Manuscripts and Vellum Palimpsests).  Overall there are over 5000 copies of at least part of the present canonical Bible that are from the sixth century or earlier.  These range from a few verses to whole books, to Bibles that were read in churches.  According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost experts in the world on Textual criticism and Textual reconstruction, those manuscripts have between them at least 200,000 differences.  Some of those differences are minor, or meaningless -- but some are very important and would change core Christian doctrines like the Virgin birth
298235
No.  The federal government is currently run by morons who are afraid to legitimize gay marriage because they are under the dilusion that it might somehow impact the Church (even though the religious and legal institutions of marriage are totally and completely separate and any Chuch can refuse to marry anyone they want for any reason they want).  Same-sex partnerships essentially have no legal status in the US, so their existence is virtually irrelevent to the immigration process.  It's not fair but that's the way it is.