Gay Marriage: Legal in the USA

**jkg** · 11-18-2003 10:04 AM

Legal in Mass. today by judicial fiat. Other states, even those with Defense of Marriage Acts, will soon have to recongnize these marriages by the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Const.

Major campaign issue in 2004.

Edit: After further review, it appears that the court has punted the case back to the legislature. The representatives will have 180 days to further define marrigage, and then the court may revisit the issue. It seems to me that if the Mass. legislature reaffirms marriage as between a man and woman, than the court may defer to it.

**MichaelP** · 11-18-2003 10:50 AM

Doesn't affect me one way or another so it's not an issue in the least.

**Troy McClure** · 11-18-2003 10:58 AM

If two young ladies decide to get married, then divorced, how do they both get to keep the house and half the other's income?

**MichaelP** · 11-18-2003 10:58 AM

On the other hand, I have to wait until my girlfriend's daughter finishes college before we can get married because otherwise my income will kill any hopes of financial aid. So, thanks to gubment bureaucracy we'll have to live in sin! Assuming she goes four years, that's at least 6 years before we can marry.

So yeah, I have much bigger concerns than an issue that is none of my business.

**cheeseczar** · 11-18-2003 11:00 AM

Originally posted by MichaelP
Doesn't affect me one way or another so it's not an issue in the least.

Agreed.

**Doctorindy** · 11-18-2003 11:08 AM

Kind of strange issue. I think too many people forget that marrage is biblical. It is of religious origins. It should be kept within the laws of the Bible where it came from.

Gays are saying that they are being discriminated because having a gay partner is, legally, no more "official" than being friends with someone. They aren't legally entitled to: health insurance, life insurance benefits, estate claims, etc., and other legally binding assumptions thaty go allong with being married to someone.

Whereas I can see the debate about benefits, I think it's also part of an ongoing effort for the radical gay movement, and they're only using those issues to mask their true their agenda.

There can be other ways of including their "partners" into the legal entitlements without having them be married. Gays that are pushing for domestic partner laws are the ones who are the onse who are truely concerned about health care, etc. The ones who push for gay marrage are just after tearing down sacred things.

I don't agree with the gay agenda, but if that's the way they want to live, so be it. Pass all the domestic partner laws you want, but keep marrage as male+female.

**MichaelP** · 11-18-2003 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Doctorindy
Kind of strange issue. I think too many people forget that marrage is biblical. It is of religious origins. It should be kept within the laws of the Bible where it came from.

Gays are saying that they are being discriminated because having a gay partner is, legally, no more "official" than being friends with someone. They aren't legally entitled to: health insurance, life insurance benefits, estate claims, etc., and other legally binding assumptions thaty go allong with being married to someone.

Whereas I can see the debate about benefits, I think it's also part of an ongoing effort for the radical gay movement, and they're only using those issues to mask their true their agenda.

There can be other ways of including their "partners" into the legal entitlements without having them be married. Gays that are pushing for domestic partner laws are the ones who are the onse who are truely concerned about health care, etc. The ones who push for gay marrage are just after tearing down sacred things.

I don't agree with the gay agenda, but if that's the way they want to live, so be it. Pass all the domestic partner laws you want, but keep marrage as male+female.

While it's origins are biblical, not everyone treats it so. If that were the case atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

It seems to me the ones who oppose gay marriage oppose it for their own agenda.

**Doctorindy** · 11-18-2003 11:38 AM

Originally posted by MichaelP
While it's origins are biblical, not everyone treats it so. If that were the case atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

It seems to me the ones who oppose gay marriage oppose it for their own agenda.

Yeah, it's a Biblical idea that became accepted in secular society.

The only way to end the debate would be a constitutional ammendment specificaly defining "marraige." Doubt that will ever happen. Until then, I think the 50 states should be consistent. Right now some aren't.

**skypigeon** · 11-18-2003 11:56 AM

You know, there's one surefire way to end controversies like this: eliminate the concept of "legal" marriage. Make marriage a purely religious institution, and have civil law recognize everyone strictly as individuals...

(ducking for cover)

**MichaelP** · 11-18-2003 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Doctorindy
Until then, I think the 50 states should be consistent. Right now some aren't.

No, they shouldn't. The whole idea behind the Consitution was to let the states govern themselves as they see fit with minimal federal intrusion.

**FCYTravis** · 11-18-2003 02:44 PM

The issue is simple.

As long as married couples receive preferential federal and state benefits, then it is unconstitutional (based on the Equal Protection Clause) to deny same-sex couples access to those same benefits solely on the idea that same-sex couples are somehow "immoral."

All Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Just as it is wrong to prohibit interracial marriage, it is wrong to prohibit same-sex marriage.

If individual churches choose not to sanction or hold same-sex marriage ceremonies, that is absolutely their right and their perogative. However, marriage as a civil institution cannot be denied to same-sex couples.

**jkg** · 11-18-2003 03:07 PM

That is incorrect. The Equal Protection Clause can be overcome if a compelling state interest can be shown to exist.

For instance, we can discriminate against blind people when issuing drivers licenses.

Just this part summer, the SCOTUS ruled that we can even discriminate on the basis of race (which requires the highest level of scrutiny by the court) when it comes to college admissions.

If "diversity" is such a compelling interest as to allow government sanctioned racial discrimination, then the argument can also be made that an interest (family harmony, population increase, etc.) exists such that discrimination against gays in issuing marriage license would also be permitted.

**hdolan** · 11-18-2003 03:14 PM

"Doesn't affect me one way or another so it's not an issue in the least. "

A bit narrow scope I would think...

**indysteve** · 11-18-2003 03:18 PM

Originally posted by FCYTravis
All Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Just as it is wrong to prohibit interracial marriage, it is wrong to prohibit same-sex marriage.

And how do we justify laws which prohibit polygamy? If "marriage" must be permitted for same-sex couples, what right does the government have to prohibit more than two people getting married? Why can't a man marry two women? Why can't a woman marry three men plus another woman? Why can't a man marry four men? Why can't we have communal "marriages" where ten men and ten women are all "married" to each other?

Just for the record, I am against polygamy. The questions above are asked to make a point.

A marriage, by definition, involves one man and one woman. If the courts move us away from that definition, and constitutional amendments cannot be passed to define marriage as such, I would be in favor of skypigeon's solution: eliminate legal recognition of marriage and leave it as a purely religious or social institution. People were getting married long before governments ever legally recognized marriage, and there's no reason it couldn't be that way again.

**MichaelP** · 11-18-2003 03:52 PM

Originally posted by hdolan
"Doesn't affect me one way or another so it's not an issue in the least. "

A bit narrow scope I would think...

It's not an issue in the sense it's not my place to tell others they can't partake of gay marriage. Which is really what most people who are against it are trying to do.

**Doctorindy** · 11-18-2003 04:23 PM

Originally posted by FCYTravis
All Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Just as it is wrong to prohibit interracial marriage, it is wrong to prohibit same-sex marriage.

The 14th Ammendment was written after the Civil War to deal with racial equality. The Equal Rights Ammendment was drafted to further clarify equal right for sex-discrimination (women). It was never ratified. Since then, individual laws based on sex-descrimination has all but covered what's necessary.

Comparing current marriage laws to the old segregation of the South has little merit. Gay people, as persons in the USA, already have equal protection under the law. Re-writing the definition of marriage is not the answer to the problem. In fact, specifically defining marriage will help the problem. Gay people, if they are unsatisfied with how they are being legally classified as couples, should be pushing for civil unions, or domestic partnerships (which can be used for male/female couples too). A contractual relationship with legal implications between them.

Raiding and redefining marriage for personal convenience, and to further an agenda is not protected under the equal protection clause. However, creating an equal designation for same-sex couples is.

**FCYTravis** · 11-18-2003 04:27 PM

Originally posted by jkg
That is incorrect. The Equal Protection Clause can be overcome if a compelling state interest can be shown to exist.

So tell me, what compelling state interest is there in discriminating against gays and lesbians in the context of marriage?

Obviously, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has found no such interest.

**FCYTravis** · 11-18-2003 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Doctorindy
Gay people, if they are unsatisfied with how they are being legally classified as couples, should be pushing for civil unions

So long as said "civil union" includes all benefits and responsibilities of a heterosexual marriage, I don't care what it's called.

Though in some sense, this is going back to the idea of "separate but equal." It can't be entirely equal as long as it's separate, as the Supremes astutely noted. It's a good first step, though.

**FCYTravis** · 11-18-2003 04:38 PM

Originally posted by jkg
The argument can also be made that an interest (family harmony, population increase, etc.) exists such that discrimination against gays in issuing marriage license would also be permitted.

If you use this "population increase" basis to define marriage, then you would also have to forbid infertile men and women from marrying, no? They can't increase the population.

Last I checked, there was no requirement that you have children when you marry. In that case, there is no legitimate government interest in prohibiting marriages incapable of bearing children.

This is not even taking into account the fact that many same-sex couples do "increase the population" by adopting children, having surrogate parents or using artificial insemination.

**Doctorindy** · 11-18-2003 05:07 PM

Originally posted by FCYTravis
So long as said "civil union" includes all benefits and responsibilities of a heterosexual marriage, I don't care what it's called.

That's exactly what I believe. In fact, it should be able to be applied to hetero couples too. A hetero couple should be able to join in said union in leau of "marriage" and not lose any legal benefits a marriage license would have given them.

I see it similar to a "legal guardian" of a minor. A child's "legal guardian" is a legal equivalent to the child's parent(s).

**mvc** · 11-18-2003 05:52 PM

Another step down the slope...

I am curious as to why for thousands of years marriage was between man and woman, but now there is this sudden urge to change all of that? Another sign that Western civilization is on the quick road to catastrophe.

**sf-indy-fan** · 11-18-2003 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Doctorindy
Gay people, as persons in the USA, already have equal protection under the law.

But we're not talking about the rights of the individual here, we're talking about the rights of a couple. And gay couples most certainly DO NOT have the same rights as married heterosexual couples, unless they pay a lawyer several thousand dollars to draw up the necessary paperwork. How much does a marriage license cost, $50, $100? Sounds like discrimination to me.

Gay people, if they are unsatisfied with how they are being legally classified as couples, should be pushing for civil unions, or domestic partnerships (which can be used for male/female couples too). A contractual relationship with legal implications between them.

Don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be satisfied with. I'll decide that for myself, thanks.

...redefining marriage for personal convenience...

Do you really think this is about mere "personal convenience"? If so, you couldn't further from the truth. It's about righting a wrong.

...and to further an agenda...

I may be gay, but I HAVE NO AGENDA, other than to live my life as a contributing member of society and to seek equal protection under the law.

I must say, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of all the straight people in the world belching forth their putrid opinions about gay issues like so many overflowing toilets. The bottom line is, if you're not gay, then DON'T PONTIFICATE ABOUT GAY ISSUES. You just don't understand because you're not seeking out and you're not getting a vital viewpoint: that of the gay individual.

**IndyJim** · 11-18-2003 06:31 PM

Wow, talk about a tough issue. I don't think you need to be gay to discuss gay topics anymore than you have to be African American to discuss topics related to them.

I think most people feel what 2 adults do behind closed doors is between them. Whether or not a persons preferences entitles them to all the benefits of a traditional man-woman-children family is a concern to some.

I think there can be issues that may be legally right to allow that are not morally right, such as abortion, but in our society the Constitution is designed to give equal protection to all people. It may not always be popular, but that is why their are courts, to make tough decisions on the laws emotional people pass.

I must admit for me if they want to get married, I don't have a real problem with that. But I would rather they not adopt children, as I think life is hard enough without forcing that on kids. That is just my opinion, no malice intended.

**FCYTravis** · 11-18-2003 07:09 PM

I may be gay, but I HAVE NO AGENDA, other than to live my life as a contributing member of society and to seek equal protection under the law.

Beautifully put and absolutely on the money. The "gay agenda" should be the agenda of all Americans: Equal rights for all.

If that's somehow wrong because being gay is "immoral," well then, count me as proudly wrong and immoral.

One day, Americans will look back upon our collective oppression of gays and lesbians in the same way we look back today upon the South's repression and segregation of African-Americans: with revulsion and horror that we could be so backwards and so stupid.

**MichaelP** · 11-18-2003 07:37 PM

Originally posted by mvc
Another step down the slope...

I am curious as to why for thousands of years marriage was between man and woman, but now there is this sudden urge to change all of that? Another sign that Western civilization is on the quick road to catastrophe.

You're right. Things were so much better when we stoned homosexuals to death instead of treating them as humans.

**sf-indy-fan** · 11-18-2003 07:46 PM

Originally posted by IndyJim
I don't think you need to be gay to discuss gay topics anymore than you have to be African American to discuss topics related to them.

And in the same way that white folks are only seeing part of the picture when they think about race relations in this country (simply by virtue of their not being black), straight people are only seeing part of the picture when they think about gay issues.

Gay people are not just pictures on TV or on the internet or in newspapers. They're real, flesh-and-blood humans. And they're (we're) being discriminated against. Now, I realize that no one wants to see themselves as someone who discriminates, but that's exactly what the people on the anti- side of the gay marriage debate are doing.

I'm not trying to muzzle anyone. I just wanted to offer something to think about before clicking the "Reply" button.

I think most people feel what 2 adults do behind closed doors is between them.

This isn't about sex. It's about love. I think we can ALL agree that these are two very different things.

Whether or not a persons preferences entitles them to all the benefits of a traditional man-woman-children family is a concern to some.

But why? Because it makes people uncomfortable? Sorry, but that just don't stand up next to The Constitution of The United States and the rights granted therein.

...I would rather they not adopt children, as I think life is hard enough without forcing that on kids. That is just my opinion, no malice intended.

What about kids from a previous (hetero) marriage? Should custody automatically go to the straight parent? What if that means the kid grows up in a single-parent household as opposed to a 2-parent household? With regard to adoption, is it better that they stay in an orphanage rather than be adopted into a loving 2-parent household? And I won't even go into the number of straight people out there who are wholly unsuited to be parents.

**carl s** · 11-18-2003 09:01 PM

Originally posted by sf-indy-fan
And in the same way that white folks are only seeing part of the picture when they think about race relations in this country (simply by virtue of their not being black), straight people are only seeing part of the picture when they think about gay issues.

Gay people are not just pictures on TV or on the internet or in newspapers. They're real, flesh-and-blood humans. And they're (we're) being discriminated against. Now, I realize that no one wants to see themselves as someone who discriminates, but that's exactly what the people on the anti- side of the gay marriage debate are doing.

I'm not trying to muzzle anyone. I just wanted to offer something to think about before clicking the "Reply" button.

This isn't about sex. It's about love. I think we can ALL agree that these are two very different things.

But why? Because it makes people uncomfortable? Sorry, but that just don't stand up next to The Constitution of The United States and the rights granted therein.

What about kids from a previous (hetero) marriage? Should custody automatically go to the straight parent? What if that means the kid grows up in a single-parent household as opposed to a 2-parent household? With regard to adoption, is it better that they stay in an orphanage rather than be adopted into a loving 2-parent household? And I won't even go into the number of straight people out there who are wholly unsuited to be parents.

Should be a way to figure this out so everyone is valued.

But then again, we can't even seem to figure out how to reconnect Indy to the short-track world.

carl s
Indio, CA