Same-sex marriage views divide in thirds

Same sex marriage?

Let's ask Grampy McBush what he thinks about that issue:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
-

Oh please, McSame also thinks it's better for children to be parentless than to be adopted by gay couples.

I got married several decades ago (to a woman) overseas. We went to a courthouse for a civil ceremony one day and then to a church for a religious ceremony the next. The civil ceremony was required by law for our union to be legally recognized, and to obtain the rights that went with that recognition. The religious ceremony was required only by custom and conferred no additional legal benefit.

This separation of civil and religious ceremonies seems to make a lot of sense in solving the problem of how to handle same sex marriage. A civil union, whether hetero- or homosexual, would confer legal status and rights. Whether the piece of paper issued as a result is called a "marriage certificate" or a "certificate of civil union" is a matter of semantics, so it would no doubt be the cause of endless vituperative debate. A religious ceremony would bestow the blessing of a church. Some churches might refuse to perform a ceremony for same sex couples, while others would be happy to. The piece of paper issued by a church could, again, be called a "marriage certificate" if the church so desired.

Who gets to use the term "marriage" or gets to say "We had a wedding" can be left to the happy couple, their friends and families. The problem is the 29% who want to have their minority view prevail and deny all rights to same sex couples. They shouldn't have the right to encode their view as law. They should be told to just bugger off.

It seems to me that a simple analyzes of the first amendment would clearly make it a violation for any law to limit someone's religious beliefs. Therefore it seems clear that Christians and their churches are free (and will be eternally free) to believe that homosexuality (and gay marriage) is wrong. And as an extension of their right to believe this, they do not need to condone, perform or acknowledge gay marriages.

However… It seems equally clear in a simple analyzes that the first amendment prohibits any law to be based on one's religious beliefs, such as laws banning gay marriage.

As a conservative Christian, I am not in favor of same-sex marriage, though it really has little to do with my conservative Christian beliefs. While I am not for same-sex marriage, I have no problem with civil unions.
Nonya, your reasoning on this issue is wrong, off-base, etc.
I also question this poll. Course, Quinnipiac polls always skew heavily to the left. I question the results because in two liberal states -- California and Massachusetts -- voters voted down same-sex marriage.

Simple answer. Put same sex marriage up to a nationwide vote in November and let the (gasp!) people decide...instead of one judge somewhere. The people actually did speak in CA, voting to oppose gay marriage by 67 percent, only to have a single judge overrule the people. And here you thought the Soviet Union was dead, didn't you?

Civil rights should never be up to voters to decide. if we had let voters decide on inter-racial marriage, it would still be illegal. Also, many people talk about activist judges making decisions on same-sex marriages. How about activist judges giving the presidency to Bush in 2000? Something to think about.

equal rights are equal rights. theres no way around it. Whether you religously believe it wrong or not is moot people. We are not a theocracy like Iran!! get over it, move on and make divorce illegal. That should help preserve the sanctity of marriage.

Thanks Max.

* * * * *
Posted by: Max | July 17, 2008 3:56 PM
*
Max, that is a lot of B.S. The Country decided that interracial marriages must be legal and allowed when it ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The People's ratification of those amendments expressed the will of the nation that those formerly held in slavery were to be elevated to a state of perfect equality with all other races. It is, in fact, only because of judicial activism that the Fourteenth Amendment was nullified and Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and the like were permitted to exist. Plessy v. Ferguson was decided against the known history and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, and contrary to the Supreme Court's own existing precedent.
*
There is, on the other hand, no corresponding provision in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right to same-sex marriage. Nor is the so-called "right" to same-sex marriage "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' . . . and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that 'neither liberty nor justice would exist if . . . [it] were sacrificed,' . . ." (See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997).) A non-enumerated right has to meet the Glucksberg criteria before it can be said to be a "fundamental constitutional right." However, there are no instances of a "right" to same-sex marriage until a mere few years ago; and only two states currently permitted it. Most of the States explicitly prohibit it and refuse to recognize it as a right. In fact, until relatively recently, U.S. Supreme Court precedent held that the States could criminalize sexual behavior between same sex couples. Moreover, same-sex marriage has never been part of the "careful definition" of marriage necessary for it to be a part of "the crucial 'guideposts for responsible decisionmaking,' . . ." (See Id., at 721.) The Courts have always defined the "fundamental" right to marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, of necessity, judges are engaged in judicial activism when they read the right to a same sex marriage into the Constitution. That is because they must both redefine the right and graft it into a history and tradition foreign to it to reach that conclusion.
*
To summarize, constitutional rights cannot be pulled out of thin air. Simply saying that a right is a "good idea" does not make it a right, or even a constitutional right. If the Constitution's text does not explicitly guarantee a particular right, that right must be deeply rooted in history and tradition and be deemed essential before it can be recognized as a right. Same-sex marriage does not meet any of these criteria. Thus, not only would it be "judicial activism" to declare same-sex marriage a "fundamental constitutional right," it would be blatant anarchy to do so as well.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 17, 2008 4:11 PM
*
Scot,
*
One does not have to be religious to hold traditional marriage sacred and inviolable. It is, after all, the natural, fundamental building block of our social order for theists and atheists alike. It has been so for thousands of years in the vast majority of the world's cultures. It is where natural procreation and child rearing occur, and in which people express their natural affections are make natural familial bonds. Even primitive cultures revere it as the best way to propagate the race and avoid the taboo of incest. So, please, get over the idea that opposite-sex marriage is the product of religion. It is not.

If Same-sex marriage becomes legal, would it be OK for a single-mother to marry her single-adult daughter?

If gov't can't lay boundries on marriage, then I guess those polygamists should have their way also.

Terry I have one word for you and it's not donkey!. Anyway, as if what you say doesnt already exist in the straight world! Loser comes to mind as well.

gov't can't lay boundries on marriage, then I guess those polygamists should have their way also.

Posted by: Terry | July 17, 2008 8:39 PM

Terri,
There's a very good reason why your wife sleeps in a seperate bedroom from you.

Scotty - when you can answer the question, insult the person who asked it.

Was I hitting to close to home for you?

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 17, 2008 9:30 PM
*
You are an educated person, Scot. So act like one. Name-calling is not a substitute for reason or intelligence. If you can't do any better than that, then don't try at all.

P.S. Max:
*
Seven members of the Supreme Court agreed that the Florida recount system violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That is so because the guarantee of Equal Protection requires the States to give exactly the same weight to every vote. The Florida plan for conducting the recount, however, involved a variety of different methods of hand counting the ballots, each of which would give weight, or more weight, where another method would not. You may not like the result because it determined the outcome of the 2000 election. However, the reasoning process by which the Court reached its result was anything but judicial activism.

John E same thing as Scotty, can't answer the question.

I question the results because in two liberal states -- California and Massachusetts -- voters voted down same-sex marriage.

Sorry JohnD, but Massachusetts never had a public vote on same sex marriage. California did in 2000, but that was 8 years ago, its time for another vote and its looking more and more like the outcome might be a bit different this time. The times are changing, don't be surprised if a state like Iowa is next.

Terry I dont answer stupid rhetorical questions such as yours. Ask something intelligent and meaningful and perhaps I will. Your attempt to demean the gay population is vile and bigoted.
John W, same goes to you. When you both grow up and accept that gay people have been here forever and will be and deserve the same equal rights as straight people, then maybe we can talk, Until then go back to your own closets and pray.

The Fourteenth Amendment is abundently clear:

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

ANY person. It is not limited to matters of race. ANY person. If we are to follow the strict constructionalist reading that the Conservatives claim to follow, we cannot interpret that statement any furtjher than what it says. ANY person. That includes the homosexuals. If the writers of the Amendment intended it to apply strictly to race, they would have written that way. They did not. Their words are simple. ANY PERSON.
As much as consrvatives hate to admit it, Homosexuals are people too.

It's a sexual preference period. It's private and should stay that way. I won't ask, so you don't ever have to tell.

Yes Teresa, let them all stay in the closet and be miserable their entire lives. Perhaps they should stop paying school taxes for your kids too.
For a number of years, researchers have known that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. In one sense, this statistic is incredibly shocking because, according to the Kinsey Report, gay teens only comprise one-tenth of the teen population. This means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth. I guess these kids don't have rights to live their lives as god chose them too either.

Scotty - ridiculous question?

As Jen states above in her interpretation of the 14th amendment, so I guess it would apply to father-son also and polygamist. What say you Scotty? I personnally don't agree with Jen's interpretation because I don't believe it was the intent of the amendment had anything to do with personal behavior.

Can you see a future court case where a single father wants to marry his single adult son so the son can have health care benefits thru his employeer? If you are judge, what do you say?

Can you see a court case where a polygamist says that the gov't is infridging on their right to pursue happiness or is discriminating against their chosen lifestyle?

You sound like you are a PR guy who answers what he can, but spins his way out of the what he can't.

Terry, your questions are not pertinant to this issue. We are not discussing incest we are discussing the right to marry for gays. Until such a case such as you suggest comes to court then we can discuss it ok. Until then lets stick to the issue of equal rights for two consenting adults who are not related, the right to marry.
Although I must say, that for polygamists, the issue goes deeper as this is their religious belief and therefore, according to the constitution, they have every right to practice as they preach. Do I agree with it? Not my call.

Theresa I agree. I think that it is a private issue. I wish those danged heterosexuals would just keep it to themselves. Stop talking about your wives and husbands. Stop talking about that pdate you had last night. I think we should throw anyone out of thre military who ever mentions any heterosexual encounter. It's bad for unit cohesion. Those straights just can't keep thier dirty private lives in the closet where they belong! Why are they all so sex crazed that you can't talk with them for five minutes without them making their sexual preference clear?

Good one Jen! As well, lets not forget all of the jiggly T&A thats forced in our faces on a daily basis on TV and in film!

Scot: Your math is wrong. If 1/3rd of all teen suicides are gay teens, then a gay teen is 4.5 times more likely to commit suicide than a gay one.

Half as many gay teens commit suicide as straight ones, and 10% of teens are gay. Assuming the rest are straight, that gives: 0.9 = 2 * 0.1 y, where y is how much more likely a gay teen is to commit suicide. The 2 comes from the fact that there are twice as many total suicides of straight teens as there are of gay teens.

A bit off topic, but bad math is a pet peeve of mine.

Um , Matt, i got those figures from the United States surgion general. So I guess another Bush appointee blunder. Still doesnt take away the fact that percentage wise, more gay teens commit suicide then straights.

Making a sexual preference a MINORITY is obsurd. Do you realize the combinations that could be made pulic MINORITY groups? SCARY!

I think these kids are embarrassed by experimentation and they come out in PUBLIC with it and find out there aren't the numbers to support a sexual preference as a MINORITY.

Teresa, being gay is not a preference. These people are born this way whether you like it or not. And yes, some people do experiment with their sexuality and when they mature sexually they know which sex attracts them. The gay community IS a minority. Your ignorant assumptions are whats scary dear.

What's SCARY Theresa? Why does people being open about how they live their lives SCARE you so much? Would it SCARE you to know a friend may be Gay or Lesbian? Should people be SCARED to find out you're straight?

Scotty, who says that if a couple gets married that has to be sex? So quit DODGING the question, if you were the judge for that case, would you allow a single-father and adult-single-son to get married? Its very pertinent because when a law is written the unintended consequences of that law should be explored and I have laid out two of them above which you just keep DUCKING.

So we have established that would be in favor of a law that would legalzie polygamy. Is that correct?

If that "jiggly T & A" bothers you, change the channel.

Scotty being gay may not be a preference, but it is a behavior and one can chose to act on that behavior, just as they can act on hetro-sexuality.

I agree with Peter, and I expect most of the people in that poll would have chosen this 'two-step' option if it had been offered to them.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." The whole idea of government diciding religious issues rather than religions is, imo, blasphemous.

Scott
You gave me a study results but there's one thing that doesn't fit.....if there are all these teens who died, exactly how in the world would they know whether it was experimentation or naturally gay? Either way, they weren't happy with it, so they killed themselves.

Jen
Why do you think someone would have such a need to go public, it's not relevant to day to day life?? I find that odd. It's not relevant in my life to know what other people do in the bedroom, or to share my business.

Scary comes from people not setting limits in life. I've lived in a VERY large city for a number of years, along with very tiny towns. Some had limits and others didn't, I base my views on the differences I saw.

Theresa-

Do you never ever mention your significant other (presumably male) In public? Why do you feel the need to go public? Do you hide your husband or boyfriend?

Why do you expect others to be more secretive than you are? Do you see same sex relationships as inherently more "Scary" the heterosexual relationships?

People in same sex relationships have all the same urges you do. They talk about their lives, and what's important to them, including their relationships. It's simply part of being human.

Liz , you act like I don't have a right to find sex between 2 people of the same sex rather repulsive.

If I were 'sharing' , it wouldn't THAT personal with anyone other than my lover.

I have no interest in listening to the personal sexual escapades from either side. If I were talking to a straight friend about relationships in general and a Gay person came up and started SHARING, I would find a polite way to walk away. I don't feel bad about that at all.

Terry, I answered your ignorant question in that it is not relevant to this issue period.
AS for all the T&A on TV ya I could change the channel and WOW to my surprise its on every one of them! Thats not the point. The point is for you and the others that feel threatened by gays should get over it and move on with your own lives. Once you do that there is no threat. Get it?
And Teresa, same goes for you. So you think that teenagers who are confussed and hurt and chastised and made fun of and beaten etc should just kill themselves because they are not happy? Wow, such a nice christian thing to say. You both make me sick knowing that there are still people in this country that have no feelings for other peoples agonies. You couldnt possibly know what its like to be treated so negatively unless you were in the same situation. These poor kids have no choice in this matter and because they are so distressed their suicide rate is high. But for you thats ok right. Just another fag dead. Please dont bother responding because I have no interest in your rhetoric and bigotry!

Scotty - If you answer is that it is irrelavent, then you are once again just DUCKING the issue.
But let's summarize - you are in favor of polygamy and but at this point undecided on the father-son marriage.

As far as not seeing T & A, ever thought of shutting the TV off? Ultimate choice in the free market.

Scott Scott Scott- just because I don't have any interest in hearing about someones sexual escapes doesn't mean I wish them dead.

Your problem is that you have, for some unknown reason, done a lot of reading about the GAY experience (out of all the causes you could pick from), and you've gotten very emotionally upset by the fact that the majority does not accept them as a Minority group. Your solution is that WE all change.... not gonna work. Try something new to help them or a new cause.

Teresa, WTF are you talking about. DO you watch yourself in the mirror making up useless and rediculous points? AS for your ignorance and assumption that I have done "some" reading about the gay experience, man you are more dumb then I thought. Um, HELLO I'm a gay man!!!
And as for you and your bigoted insecuritites, well, you could never possibly know what its like to be chastsied, made fun of, beaten up, denied equal rights, and almost killed just because of who I love!!
And as for your assumption that the majority of people do not agree that gays are a minority. again I have to laugh. Maybe the majority of people in your back woods church but certainly NOT the majority of the American people. Please find a different color sheet to put over your head and find another group of people to blame for all of your problems. You make me just as sick as I make you.