Galt's Gulch

Do Gays Have a Constitutional Right to Marry? Here’s Why Activists Fear Losing Their Supreme Court Battle | TheBlaze.com

Posted by XenokRoy 12 years ago to Politics
10 comments | Share | Flag

Here is the fundamental problem with Gay Marriage. The state has hijacked a religious contract for civil purposes.

You cannot both allow religions to practice there believes and gays to practice theirs. Neither is harmful to the other, but the two are not compatible on the same contract.

The right and proper course for this is to separate the "Marriage Contract" form the "Civil Contract" and make the Civil Union available to anyone as it should be. Update all government forms to state civil union rather than marriage and leave the marriage contract to religion where it can be restricted based on the philosophy of each religion rather than requirement that we are fair to everyone civilly.

I find it amazing that this is never discussed in any court case or any law. Both sides are irrational since they are attempting to use the government, in the name of equality to eliminate the rights of some other group. It drives me nuts.
SOURCE URL: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-gays-have-a-constitutional-right-to-marry-heres-why-activists-fear-losing-their-supreme-court-battle/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years ago
    A most reasonable solution, therefore it will be found unacceptable by the zealots… I have been saying for years that it is an apples and oranges argument. My objection is to the bastardization of the language. A marriage is a union of a man and a woman, period. Create a new word for a union between other combinations. The rights and tax consequences should be equal regardless. We should have no marriage benefit, since it is a special cutout for a group, albeit a small one. It is still a collective notion. We should have only individual rights regardless of associations. This way the government could stay out of it altogether. There would be no need for any govt. contract, civil or otherwise. Let the Churches and Justice of the Peace perform the ceremonies and be done with it without any govt. implications.
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by jorellyoung 12 years ago
    Elegantly stated! I find myself often in this debate trying to get people to pull back from the immediate rhetoric, to the morality of federally sanctioned relationships, as usual people are thinking way too surface and are unwilling to examine the roots of an issue.

    Personally I'm intrigued with arguments against government regulated unions at all, is there a reason we can't negotiate the terms of our relationships through privately agreed upon contracts? Most religious and non-religious people feel that the approval of their perspective deity or loved-one is more binding than a legal document anyway - and personal contracts are still how we conduct business and are relevant in any courtroom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by XenokRoy 12 years ago
      I tend to like a written contract. It keeps me clear on what I agreed to and helps me make sure I honor my word. It does the same for other parties.

      I would prefer that the government is not part of it, unless we have to head to the courtroom to settle a dispute. It would be nice if the government had simply stayed out of marriage in the first place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 12 years ago
        There has to be a way to remedy property and children issues. There must be a means to enforce. Although I understand Gays' desire to be included in the marriage contract as it stands; it provides benefits employers and insurers have not , for the most part, included in their risks. Of course everyone ignores the elephant in the room- the government parsing out special rights and privileges to a group of people. mandatory insurance covered artificial insemination anyone?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo