"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
However, our laws...including state laws...must adhere to the constitution. That means they must equally protect under the law. Marriage laws as they stand discriminate agaisnt both genders without a substantially shown important state interest to do such.For many state's they have legally defined marriage within the traditional definition. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, no where in the Constitution does it say that all sexual orientations must be allowed to have an inclusive definition within the marriage covenant for all states. State's issue the marriage license, and they have the right to define what relationships fit that license. Our laws are based on the will of the people. It's tradition to hold murder as immoral, to hold theft as immoral, and to hold disorderly conducts as immoral. Those traditions are also laws.
Yes, as long as its constitutional. You can't have laws defined on a "social contract" that is unconstitutional.The legal defense is that state's issue marriage licenses. Many states have formerly defined what marriage is in that states. A few have included homosexual unions as acceptable marital relationships. Others have restricted the definition only between one man and one woman. The legal defense is that a state and the citizens of that state have every right as a society, to define a social contract that is recognized by the law.
Could a state have a social contract saying that only males are allowed to be gainfully employed simply because its voted as such by the citizens of that state?
What other sexuality is there? Bisexual? They could go to either side depending on who they're coupled with. Asexual? Well, that highlights one of my issues with government sponsoring marriage at all.So then why is it ok to say "this side of the restaurant (marriage) is for gay couples and straight couples. Now, all you other sexualities aren't even allowed inside."
Not to mention my argument is about gender, nor sexual preference.
That's not my argument, as I've stated numerous times in this thread.If the basis for argument is that it's wrong to disallow homosexual unions from marriage because it's unlawful define marriage as an exclusive thing for one sexuality, then why can't other sexualities along side homosexuality have the right to that contract?
But even so, what "other sexualities"?
Government contract or private enterprise contract?Defining spaces in a restaurant and setting the terms for a contract are very different. Suppose there is a contract set in place that gives financial benefits to corporations. Is it wrong for that contract to limit the contract only to corporations and not to individuals?
If you're speaking of government contract, discriminating against individuals instead of groups doesn't reach a the same tier as gender under the EPC and would be questionable if its covered at all. Furthermore, I think you're arguing something that's generally an impossability...as a singular solitary individual is generally not going to be able to take care of an entire government contract that would normally require a corporation to pull off. Its not about just money, but man power, infastructure, etc.
Nope, but its wrong to have government laws that have boundaries that are unconstitutional.Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries?
As long as they adhere to other laws, such as the constitution.It isn't wrong for a state to define marriage, especially when the state's give out the licenses. They have every right to set the terms, conditions, and boundaries on the contract.
Because its unconstitutional, just like "redefining" that black people are actually people after centuries.So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries?
Actually its not. In one case you're arguing something that is arguably essentially "born" or more to the point something that for many isn't "chosen" to something that's not chosen. In the other one you're comparing something that's arguably not "chosen" to something that has no evidence showing what so ever that its anything other than a choice.Sexuality is not the same as race. This is like comparing homosexuality to polygamy.
But then again, I am not arguing sexuality. I'm arguing gender. And Gender can definitely be compared to race when it comes to Equal Protection.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Civil Unions should be the legal process for all citizens.
Marriage should be a private matter without the government involved.
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it should be since marriage has become entangled with the tax code, etc. This never should have happened in the first place. Undoing it now may be politically impossible, and takes some aspects of the marriage relationship out of the states' control.
We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.