Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

roguenuke said:

Marriage has changed throughout history several times. And if the states are not willing to limit opposite sex couples who can't have children from getting married and/or make it harder for those married couples who do have children from getting divorced and/or also "encouraging" those couples who have children outside of marriage to get married, then procreation cannot be deemed as a valid state interest in marriage.

Incestuous sexual relationships are illegal. For both the genetic issues of children and the fact that many involved some form of undue influence beginning prior to age of consent.

If the only obligation the federal government had was to honor and enforce state marriage contracts per state rules, then interracial marriage and convicts getting married would still be banned by some states.

Family receive benefits and rights for just being family. There has to be a way for adults to choose a person to get those rights of family who isn't otherwise entitled to them plus extra for the mere commitment to share their lives, including expenses.

Click to expand...

I accept NONE of that "receive benefits" argument unless you can explain why the "marriage" contrct can then be limitted to include ONLY TWO consenting adult citizens, since a business "partnership" has no such limitations, it may include 3 or even 10 partners. Marriage contracts may also include 'prenuptual agreements' making them essentially a joke as far as "mutual commitment" and sharing lives goes.

As to the point of race and convict status that has NOTHING to do with gender, the thrust of your desired change. It is clearly legal to have 'separate but equal' gender specific restrooms and prisons, seperate but equally funded gender specific college sports programs and even gender specific physical standards for military service, so get off of that gender neutral "rights" nonsense, unless you wish to "go all the way". Gender matters, believe it or not.

As with the point of race and gender that took constitutional action to change the voting rights, not a mere assertion that they were "unfair" to make it become a federal control issue. Convicted felons can still be denied the right to vote.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

On an ethical level, no. Whether people deserve equality is not a "state issue." It's a civil rights issue. This is like asking whether women being allowed to vote should be a state issue. The states don't get to decide to discriminate against people.

On a practical level, I suspect there is no other way to get a big enough head of steam behind it except to let the states battle it out one-by-one until there's enough support to make a move for nation-wide legislation. And that frustrates me to no end, but it's the truth.

Click to expand...

Much like it was with miscegenation, I suspect it's more likely that this will be resolved at the Supreme Court, but the scenario you state could be possible as well.

jamesrage said:

I suppose that with all the gay and tranny propaganda being pumped out on ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX and other liberal entertainment channels there will be lots of idiots to support legalizing gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Seeing as your definition of "gay and tranny propaganda" essentially means established psychological science, I don't have a problem with this.

In any case, propaganda or no, I've never seen you give even a remotely solid defense of your anti-SSM position :shrug:

roguenuke said:

There are many rights that marriage gives that are not covered by any other current contracts, even in conjunction with each other. Family is held to a certain status by our laws. And spouses are held to a higher level due to the acknowledgement that married couples are offering a level of commitment, enshrined in a legal contract, that says they are willingly taking responsibility for each other financially (at least to a certain degree) and that they are willing to stay together. Stable couples have been shown to be a positive to societies. Even with allowing divorce, marriage provides a form of stability and makes it harder for those within a marriage to leave each other.

Click to expand...

Marriage adds nothing at all to relationships so it has to rely on the benefits to do much of anything and even then you don't need it.

Snake_Plissken said:

Very true and I can see the point, but without the License a couple can protect those things with a Will, could they not?

I used the word in love, because that is why most people get married, but yes if they fall out of love it does not nullify the contract

Click to expand...

I am no lawyer, but even most wills can't keep IRS out of the inheritance game, although (I think) there are some trust agreements that may accomplish that as well.

ttwtt78640 said:

I accept NONE of that "receive benefits" argument unless you can explain why the "marriage" contrct can then be limitted to include ONLY TWO consenting adult citizens, since a business "partnership" has no such limitations, it may include 3 or even 10 partners. Marriage contracts may also include 'prenuptual agreements' making them essentially a joke as far as "mutual commitment" and sharing lives goes.

Click to expand...

First of all, the addition of multiple partners would bring up legal issues without those things being covered prior to the marriage arrangement becoming legal. I'm okay with allowing more than two people in a marriage. Those wanting it though need to provide a way to ensure that the legal cases that come with those additional partners are kept to a minimum, particularly when talking about things that can easily be addressed prior to marriage. But we would still need a limit of how many to ensure that we are actually keeping the benefit of stable couples.

And prenups can be challenged. But even without the challenge, there are still things that people are required to be responsible for for their spouse, such as decisions to be made concerning medical issues and death of their spouse. A prenup only changes compensation of money/property existing prior to the marriage to the spouse who didn't own that stuff in the first place.

ttwtt78640 said:

As to the point of race and convict status that has NOTHING to do with gender, the thrust of your desired change. It is clearly legal to have 'separate but equal' gender specific restrooms and prisons, seperate but equally funded gender specific college sports programs and even gender specific physical standards for military service, so get off of that gender neutral "rights" nonsense, unless you wish to "go all the way". Gender matters, believe it or not.

Click to expand...

Those things are still covered by the important state interest. Gender differences must meet an important state interest related to the restriction. Since gender is not the sole determining factor in whether a person can procreate and procreation is not even required as a part of being legally married, then gender requirements for procreation are not reasonable, alone, in meeting a state interest in procreation as it relates to marriage.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The level of scrutiny and how state interests apply are very important to this argument. Ignoring that sex discrimination is allowed, but only when a proven relationship between an important state interest can be proven to be met by that discrimination. There is no important state interest being met by restricting couples from marrying on the basis of their sex alone.

Henrin said:

Marriage adds nothing at all to relationships so it has to rely on the benefits to do much of anything and even then you don't need it.

Click to expand...

You need to be legally married to be seen as a legal dependent by the US military. It is a part of national security because they run background checks on the legal spouses of service members. You need to be legally married to be covered under the law that says spouses cannot be forced to testify against their spouses. In fact, many would also say that spousal conversations are held at a confidentiality level of at least doctor/patient or lawyer/client, if not higher. No other relationship between people is held at that level. And only legal marriage will give spouses at least the same level of family rights that blood relationships receive. The Family Leave Act only applies to legal family, either blood relatives, legally adopted relatives, or spouses.

roguenuke said:

There are people who realize that our Constitution is important, including treating people equally under the law and not allowing people's unwarranted biases and religious/moral beliefs to be/remain enshrined within our laws.

Click to expand...

I agree with the "our constitution is important" argument, in fact, it is so important that it took amendment to change the voting rights based on race and gender (by separate amendments, no less) so ONLY a constitutional amendment, may give federal power over the definition of marraige contracts, now clearly NOT a federal matter.

Thunder said:

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Click to expand...

As per the 10th Amendment, Marriage, not being a specifically enumerated right, falls to the states to regulate. As per Interstate Commerce Clause, all states may have to honor another state's ssm, but they may not have to issue SSMs.

TheLastIndependent said:

Should the issue of slavery be left to the states?

Click to expand...

This is a false comparison. Please try again.

roguenuke said:

You need to be legally married to be seen as a legal dependent by the US military.
It is a part of national security because they run background checks on the legal spouses of service members.

Click to expand...

So you agree with this? It seems completely unnecessary to me.

You need to be legally married to be covered under the law that says spouses cannot be forced to testify against their spouses.

Click to expand...

That is just not necessary.

In fact, many would also say that spousal conversations are held at a confidentiality level of at least doctor/patient or lawyer/client, if not higher.

Click to expand...

Lol why?

No other relationship between people is held at that level. And only legal marriage will give spouses at least the same level of family rights that blood relationships receive. The Family Leave Act only applies to legal family, either blood relatives, legally adopted relatives, or spouses.

Click to expand...

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993? That? I'm for destroying that.

roguenuke said:

You need to be legally married to be seen as a legal dependent by the US military. It is a part of national security because they run background checks on the legal spouses of service members. You need to be legally married to be covered under the law that says spouses cannot be forced to testify against their spouses. In fact, many would also say that spousal conversations are held at a confidentiality level of at least doctor/patient or lawyer/client, if not higher. No other relationship between people is held at that level. And only legal marriage will give spouses at least the same level of family rights that blood relationships receive. The Family Leave Act only applies to legal family, either blood relatives, legally adopted relatives, or spouses.

Click to expand...

OK, that only shows that federal law places special 'privileges' (not rights) via congressional legislation, not that state marraige contracts are then somehow federal. The very SAME process can be used to add "civil unions" in every clause that refers to a marriage in federal law, or congress may pass a federal law that says ALL federal laws, from this point forward, shall treat marriage and civil unions equally. That still leaves it up to that states to decide if they too, wish to assign the same rights to civil unions as to marriages, or even to issue such a contract. My main point is that making the definition of marraige contract law provisions into a federal power REQUIRES constitutional action as it is clearly a power currently held only by states, there is NO federal marraige contract, only references in federal laws to the state contract status of 'married'.

ttwtt78640 said:

I agree with the "our constitution is important" argument, in fact, it is so important that it took amendment to change the voting rights based on race and gender (by separate amendments, no less) so ONLY a constitutional amendment, may give federal power over the definition of marraige contracts, now clearly NOT a federal matter.

Click to expand...

Marriage has already been ruled to fall under the 14th Amendment as far as equal protection goes. Since this is true, the federal government has a right, generally through the SC, to enforce the 14th Amendment on state laws regarding marriage.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, that only shows that federal law places special 'privileges' (not rights) via congressional legislation, not that state marraige contracts are then somehow federal. The very SAME process can be used to add "civil unions" in every clause that refers to a marriage in federal law, or may pass a federal law that says ALL federal laws, from this point forward, shall treat marriage and civil unions equally. That still leaves it up to that states to decide if they too, wish to assign the same rights to civil unions as to marriages, or even to issue such a contract. My main point is that making the definition of marraige contrct law a federal issue REQUIRES constitutional action as it is clearly a power currently held only by states, there is NO federal marraige contract, only references in federal laws to the state contract status of 'married'.

Click to expand...

I am against civil unions because a) it will likely take just as much, if not more time to get legal civil unions to the same legal level as legal marriage is now, with all the same rights and privileges and benefits that come with marriage and b) it will cost our government more to do this.

We already have legal same sex marriage in some states. It is stupid to go back on that.

Opposite sex couples, heterosexuals, nor religious people own the word marriage. Like it or not, legal marriage must respect the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. The bans against same sex marriage are against the 14th Amendment, and therefore need to be struck down.

Jerry said:

This is a false comparison. Please try again.

Click to expand...

Actually it is a good one, because that took constitutional amendment to 'resolve', not a mere act of congress or the opinion of an "activist" judge.

Henrin said:

So you agree with this? It seems completely unnecessary to me.

Click to expand...

Being both a married service member and a military spouse, I absolutely agree with this.

Henrin said:

That is just not necessary.

Lol why?

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993? That? I'm for destroying that.

Click to expand...

The majority of people and the law do not agree with you.

And there are many more things that marriage does with one contract that would otherwise take many. It is very unlikely to go away anytime in the near future. Legal marriage is good for our society, including those involved, the legal system when it comes to family law, and government programs.

wolfsgirl said:

We shouldn't vote on civil rights. So, no.

Click to expand...

The 'same-sex' variety of marriage is not "fundamental to [human's] basic survival".

The reason why opposite-sex marriage is "fundamental to [human's] basic survival" is due to opposite sex couple's reasonable expectation of procreation. Since the state's compelling interest in marriage is the raising and socializing of children, the state therefore has precedent to establish laws regulating marriage.

No procreation can be reasonably expected from 2 people of the same sex, so the state has no compelling interest to regulate those relationships. As per the right to free association, the state is not allowed to ban relationships which are not otherwise harmful, so gays are free to live together, as they should be.

roguenuke said:

I am against civil unions because a) it will likely take just as much, if not more time to get legal civil unions to the same legal level as legal marriage is now, with all the same rights and privileges and benefits that come with marriage and b) it will cost our government more to do this.

We already have legal same sex marriage in some states. It is stupid to go back on that.

Opposite sex couples, heterosexuals, nor religious people own the word marriage. Like it or not, legal marriage must respect the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. The bans against same sex marriage are against the 14th Amendment, and therefore need to be struck down.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. That same 'logic' would make ALL gender based laws ILLEGAL for "gender separate" restrooms, prison cells, sports and military service physical standards. We have long accepted the "separate but equal status of gender", but to make ANYTHING federal takes constitutional action, just as it did to give women the right to vote. Simply because something is popular, or deemed "fair" by a judge (or even all of them) does not make it a constitutional federal power.

I want every state to legalize SSM, so my answer is 'yes'.

roguenuke said:

Marriage has already been ruled to fall under the 14th Amendment as far as equal protection goes. Since this is true, the federal government has a right, generally through the SC, to enforce the 14th Amendment on state laws regarding marriage.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Then please explain constitutionally "separate but equal" for gender specific restrooms, prison cells, sports and military physical fitness standards, yet NOT for race.

Jerry said:

The 'same-sex' variety of marriage is not "fundamental to [human's] basic survival".

The reason why opposite-sex marriage is "fundamental to [human's] basic survival" is due to opposite sex couple's reasonable expectation of procreation. The State's compelling interest in marriage is the raising and socializing of children.

No procreation can be reasonably expected from 2 people of the same sex, so the state has no compelling interest to regulate those relationships. SSM is therefore a violation of the basic right to privacy.

Click to expand...

Opposite sex marriage is not truly "fundamental" to basic survival either, particularly not legal marriage. People have children out of legal wedlock all the time. And people legally allowed to marry now both cannot and do not want to have/raise children.

ttwtt78640 said:

Oh really? Then please explain constitutional "separate but equal" for gender specific restrooms, prison cells, sports and military physical fitness standards.

Click to expand...

Do you not understand level of scrutiny? The state(s) have shown an important state interest in keeping gender separation for those things. They do not have any such interest or proof to be supporting such interest in same sex marriage bans.

ttwtt78640 said:

Nonsense. That same 'logic' would make ALL gender based laws ILLEGAL for "gender separate" restrooms, prison cells, sports and military service physical standards. We have long accepted the "separate but equal status of gender", but to make ANYTHING federal takes constitutional action, just as it did to give women the right to vote. Simply because something is popular, or deemed "fair" by a judge (or even all of them) does not make it a constitutional federal power.

Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. It is about the state showing how such separations actually are helping to meet an important state interest. Plus, someone must challenge those things in order for them to reach the SC, who makes the final decision. The SC determines what is constitutional or not. It is highly likely that the SC will decide that same sex marriages do not meet any important or even reasonably relate to a state interest.

Kal'Stang said:

Individual rights should never be left up to the states.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel about the right to keep and carry personal 'arms', so I empathize.

jamesrage said:

I suppose that with all the gay and tranny propaganda being pumped out on ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX and other liberal entertainment channels there will be lots of idiots to support legalizing gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps they feel that gays shouldn't be treated as second class citizens? I know, I know, it may be personally inconvenient to actually consider the fact that individuals have different core values without chalking it up as "propaganda", but hey give it a shot sometime.