Justices appear hesitant as they hear arguments over same-sex marriage
Washington (CNN) -- As partisans argued pointedly over same-sex marriage outside the U.S. Supreme Court building, either hoping for or dreading a landmark decision, justices inside seemed reluctant Tuesday to extend a sweeping constitutional right for gays and lesbian to wed in all 50 states.
It is long past time we stopped giving the LGBT community special protection. I understand that for years many in their community have suffered at the hands of the ignorant and the bigoted, and my heart breaks for those people. However, it does not excuse the unconstitutional protection that they enjoy simply because of their sexual orientation.
End the ban on gay marriage - stop protecting the LGBT community!
That is all.
10 comments:
"The rights of the people..."
All of the protected classes have to decide if they are people.
If they're people they get protected the same as everyone else and have the same rights.
If they aren't then they NEED special protection, but as second class citizens who are "special".
Perhaps a different POV . . .
The government should end it's control of "marriage" - period. Civil contracts for all, regardless of gender or quantity. Heck, I don't care if someone has a special affinity for "Buffy" the sheep . . . . they should get the heck outta the marriage game . . .
Marriage is a sacrament, not a government "entitlement" - put Marriage back into houses of worship - not the halls of government.
Now stepping down from my soap box . . . .
End ALL of the protected classes... Period...
The gov has no buisness being in mariage. Now, speaking as an ordained minister that has performed weddings, I wouldn't conduct a same sex ceremony. Not because I'm bigoted against gays. I wouldn't because God says that's immorale and for me to do something He considers immorale in His name go against what I believe. Call me what you will, but in the end I need to be able to face my end and stand before God and account for my sins. That is not one I am willing to answer for.
Riley
I'm about to listen to Defenders of Marrage again.
After all, why shouldn't gay people have the legal ability to get trapped in a loveless marriage?
Riley - I can't speak for Jay, of course, but my personal view is this:
The government should be out of the marriage business. Period. Marriage is a civil contract, and a religious union.
Gay, straight, Jim-llama, whatever. If you are both able to consent, and can find an officiant willing to perform the ceremony you desire, then you've got the religious side covered. When that's done (or before, if you prefer), head on down to the court and file the paperwork for sharing of benefits, estates, and so forth.
I'm with eiaftinfo on this. The state governments, at any time, could say that civil unions can apply to everyone and not have to get the church or religious side dragged in.
The fact that most states haven't done this is very telling.
The couples that I've known, at least those who are not professional activist types, found ways to get powers of attorney, joint bank accounts, and other things so that they had many of the protections of marriage without needing to be married. I asked two of the couples what they thought, back when gay marriage first appeared in the news. The gents in both couples sort of shrugged and said, "no, thanks, we've got what we want." I suspect if it weren't for 1) the "shock the straights" crowd and 2) the question of pensions and benefits, gay marriage would not be up on the radar.
LittleRed1
Riley,
I'm with ya there. Civil marriage is nothing more than a contract. It has no religious component to it what so ever. (Otherwise, you would hear complaints about heterosexual atheist marriage as well.) The contract joins legal entities and give each member of that legal entity rights and responsibilities such as to direct medical care and right of survivorship. (Plus some taxation and other governmental intrusion.)
The courts have long held that they are incompentent to judge ecclesiastical matters. (Of which, religious marriage is strictly an ecclesiastical matter). I would suspect that you would also refuse to perform an atheist marriage or non-Christian marriage between heterosexual couples because it makes no sense. It would be congruent to fraud. The people in front of you would be reciting a rite in which they are lying about believing in.
I would support relabling civil marriage as a form of corporate merger (or personal merger). It would tend to reduce the confusion and reduce the types of extremists who are claiming that allowing same sex civil marriage will impact religious marriage one whit.
Joseph in IL
Post a Comment