- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?
Should the issue of slavery be left to the states?
Without the Thirteenth Amendment, it would have to be.
So the answer to the question of the thread is until there is an amendment that says otherwise, the rule of law should be respected, or we don't really have a nation based on law.
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?
Should the issue of slavery be left to the states?
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?
While hardly a perfect analogy, since slavery contracts had no 'mutual consent' involved, it makes a good point that the answer is definitely YES unless (until?) the constitution is amended to make it a federal power. Just because something may be popular, or is seen as "needed" by a judge, does not make it into a federal power. What we have here is a desire by some to impose a change on the definition of marriage (and by extension family), that makes gender, a key factor in sexual reproduction, no longer "important". If not for that 'minor' issue why should marraige be barred btween a biological brother and sister, or even limitted to only one man and one woman (thus allowing polygamy)? The only responsibility of the federal gov't is to honor and enforce the marriage contract granted by each state per the rules (laws) of that state. Perhaps the better question is why a state marriage contract should alter the federal tax status of anyone. If one were REALLY concerned with "civil rights" then the contractual relationship between people would have no effect on their taxation and all citizens would be treated 'equally' as individuals by the FIT code, regardless of their contractual obligations to each other or how many children (dependents) that they decide to have. Whether you live in a high or low cost area (e.g. NYC vs. rural Texas) should have more bearing on your FIT obligation (as it does on your income and living expenses) than whether you choose to enter into a marriage contract or have children.
1) If two people are committed to each, not my place to judge them
2) Civil Unions would be my preference instead of the word Marriage
3) States/Counties is a License, not the Federal Government
That being said, the whole idea of needing a License to Marry or form a Union is ridiculous, just another way for a Government to make money, people are not possessions like a dog or a car and should not need a License to show their love to each other.
I say no. Gay marriage should be banned on the federal level and that includes civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other paper coated terms that closet supporters of gay marriage want to use to sneak in gay marriage. When it comes to certain things saying leave it up to the states is a cop-out.
There is not enough support for a federal marriage amendment now, which is what would be required to federally ban same sex marriage. And the support for same sex marriage is increasing every day, which means the support for a FMA is decreasing every day.
The marraige contract is more about inheritance, joint property, child custody, parental responsibility and tax law than about "love", since falling out of "love" does not, in and of itself, alter or nullify the marriage contract, mutual support obligations for children (or the spouse) or the rights to any joint property.
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.
The marraige contract is more about inheritance, joint property, child custody, parental responsibility and tax law than about "love", since falling out of "love" does not, in and of itself, alter or nullify the marriage contract, mutual support obligations for children (or the spouse) or the rights to any joint property.
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 fall out of love it does not nullify the contract