bobwg
Expert Expediter
Can someone please show me in the constitution where it says anything about marriage being a right?? or maybe its in the bill of rights? marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right
"Moving day"???
- Thread starter mjmsprt40
- Start date
Can someone please show me in the constitution where it says anything about marriage being a right?? or maybe its in the bill of rights? marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right
It's not there. In fact, it seems there was no such thing as a "marriage license" until after the Civil War. Then, certain states passed laws requiring you to get a license from the state before marrying--- as a way to stop interracial marriages. Before then, marriages were either what we today call "common law" or they were a religious rite.
Now today the LBGT community wants to force the issue of state-issued marriage licenses for their "marriages", as a way to force community acceptance of their lifestyle as "normal". Problem: For way too many of us it seems that marriage has that religious connection-- I'm one, anyway-- and for us what God says goes.
So, the issue comes down to this: If marriage is God-ordained, God-inspired, then God makes the rules concerning it. If marriage is a man-made institution regulated by state laws, then you can make whatever laws suit you.
Every now and then I have to dig through the archives for the following link. In view of Bobwg's response--- which happens to be right-- the time has come to post it in this thread that will not die.
Bill of No Rights - 12/08/97
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
I don't want health care or the government taking care of me...hence why I work and have no government assistance.!
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
Marriage is not in the Constitution, but it is nevertheless one of the Fundamental Rights (which is why it's so important to gays to be able to redefine what marriage means).
The important case in the US that declared the right to marry as a fundamental right was Loving v Virginia, which struck down a Virginia law making it illegal for a white person to marry a non-white person.
In the decision, the Supreme Court stated
The first sentence in particular, regarding marriage being "fundamental to our very existence and survival" is particularly problematic to homosexuals, because gay marriage provides nothing whatsoever that is fundamental to our existence and survival. Procreation and propagation of the species is the fundamental purpose of marriage. Gotta get that thing redefined.
That could be a problem for my last marriage. She had had three kids before me by C-section, and had had her tubes tied. We could not procreate, therefore by this definition even though we were a man and a woman we failed the "Turtle Test" for being able to marry. (Might as well stir the pot a little more since this thread won't die and I don't have the right oak stake.)
Where did I say that procreation was the sole reason for people to get married, or the only reason to allow people to be married? Nowhere, that's where. Having children is not the litmus test, or the Turtle Test, and I never even hinted that it was. The union of a man and a woman is the litmus test. You really should read the Supreme Court statement again.
mxzane933
Seasoned Expediter
The problem with gay marriage is that a marriage is supposed to be done in a church and the fact that churches don't believe in homosexuality is going to cause a slew of problems and then the church is going to get prosecuted in civil court because they are not gonna let a man and a man get married in the church, 3 reasons why,1: The church believes in a man and a women being married,2: homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven,3: If the church was marrying two gays ,It would directly be going against the bible, and the whole reason there is a church in the first place. It is just sick and wrong for someone to try to push the issue and get it legal because it will do so much bad and cause the church nothing but trouble.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using EO Forums
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using EO Forums
Last i knew i could go in front of a justice of the peace and get married...no church there...and as you said for it is "sick and wrong"...my honest opinion... people who put there whole moral being into a "man in the sky" is a little out there...see religion is all about control.. do what we want and say..go to the nice place in the sky... defy us...you are sent to a real warm not so nice place..
Religions view on homosexuality is one of many reasons it turns me off totally....and how can all these preachers keep getting caught diddling the choir boys but are still in the church??
Sent from my Etch-A-Sketch
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
Causing the church trouble is the least of my concerns honestly...and I know quite a few LGBT Christians and many LGBT marriage supporters who are Christians. I know personally one Priest and a Preacher also.
Aside from that if the church doesn't like it don't perform a same sex marriage, plenty of other churches and justice of the peace's will. I don't expect the church to change there views but I expect them to stop forcing their views on others.
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
Sorry but i do not understand that logic. You want one side to stop forcing their views but not the other.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
I don't want religion in my government or life choices...I don't like something I don't do it, I don't go around forcing others to stop or deny them something. You cannot impose religious laws in a secular country.
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
Besides that I said if they don't support gay marriage don't perform one...nowhere did I say force them to perform same sex marriage.
No one is forcing anyone to be gay or even stop thinking it's a sin...that's their choice but yes I guess that's forcing them to understand that some people are queer, they're here and they're not going anywhere nor should they have to hide it!
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
You are looking at the argument one sided imho. I have not mentioned religion and still feel marriage is between man and women. You seem to see views be forced only when it comes from the side you don't agree with.
I feel like i am being forced to accept the institution of marriage being diluted and being used in a way it was never meant to be no religion involved.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
If you look back in this thread Paullud and I were discussing civil unions. I'm all for changing it from the government handing out marriage certificates to them issuing civil union certificates. As long as the benefits are the same across the board, some states won't recognize another states civil union yet they will recognize a marriage. Right of survivorship benefits, etc. Then you can have a marriage, I can a handfasting etc etc....I could care less what it's called as long as people can love who they want and not have issues like healthcare, right of survivorship denied to them.
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
Judging by the divorce rate [not to mention the numbers of infidelity, whether known or un], the institution of marriage isn't in real great shape to begin with. But I don't see where any two people who wish to make the commitment are a threat to marriage - more like 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' innit?
The threats to marriage are elsewhere, mostly [IMO]: unreasonable expectations, and the inability of people to cope with stresses in a psychologically healthy way. Life gets tough, some people comfort themselves with drugs, alcohol, food, adultery - whatever makes them feel better temporarily. Defense of marriage would be better accomplished by better preparing people for the good and bad. [And decreasing unemployment, which is a major stress factor!]
As Bob Dylan noted [decades ago, lol] the times, they are a changing - just this year, 2 more states have approved of gay marriage, because the voters want it.
The 9 states that allow it [Ma, Ct, Ia, Vt, Ct, NH, NY, Me, Md, Wa] are outnumbered, but the wheel is turning, and more and more see it as a matter of civil rights.
I think that encouraging stable and committed and monogamous relationships is a positive step forward in our cultural evolution.
The threats to marriage are elsewhere, mostly [IMO]: unreasonable expectations, and the inability of people to cope with stresses in a psychologically healthy way. Life gets tough, some people comfort themselves with drugs, alcohol, food, adultery - whatever makes them feel better temporarily. Defense of marriage would be better accomplished by better preparing people for the good and bad. [And decreasing unemployment, which is a major stress factor!]
As Bob Dylan noted [decades ago, lol] the times, they are a changing - just this year, 2 more states have approved of gay marriage, because the voters want it.
The 9 states that allow it [Ma, Ct, Ia, Vt, Ct, NH, NY, Me, Md, Wa] are outnumbered, but the wheel is turning, and more and more see it as a matter of civil rights.
I think that encouraging stable and committed and monogamous relationships is a positive step forward in our cultural evolution.
In no way shape or form is it civil rights. In many of those states a large majority voted against it when left to the public. Then it was taken to the courts and the view of the few was forced upon the majority.
Acceptance of things often comes from forced accepting not from the actual accepting of something. To say marriage isn't what it once was so lets just go all the way is a perfect example of that.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums