Gay Marriage; States rights, federal rights, or human rights

By Eyes_open


As the Supreme Court takes on the issue of California’s Proposition 8, and the federal DOMA, and Jeb Bush weighs in that he believes marriage should be a states rights issue, where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, and why. Is it a matter that should be left to each state, should the federal government be involved and to what degree. Or is this a constitutional violation of civil rights, placing it in the hands of the Supreme Court.

40 thoughts on “Gay Marriage; States rights, federal rights, or human rights”

  1. I have no particular issue, with these "other things" .. ( People "Loving each other" can never be wrong ) .. Just Don't call it "Marriage" .. Peh!

    Marriage = "One Man, One Woman" .. Simple as that!

    1. That is the Christian definition, but this country isn't a Christian country, it's a secular country. As a legal reference, marriage is the union of consenting adults, to ban one group from being able to enter that union because of their sexual preference is in direct violation of the constitution and the equal rights amendment passed in 1972.

      If a church chooses not to preform or recognize such unions, that is there right, just like the Mississippi church that was recently in the news for refusing to preform a wedding ceremony for a black couple.

      1. No it's not the "christian definition" it is the definition.
        Changing what a marriage is, is like saying 1+2=3, but because of feelings now 1+1=3 and 2+2=3.
        I have nothing against people loving one another. But since it isn't a "marriage" by any standard, call it something else. Personally, what benefits they acquire is what concerns them most it appears.
        And it is and always has been a states or people right.

        1. Marriage has two sides to the definition, one from theology, then another from the contractual aspect.If we are dealing with this on a governmental side, then we are dealing with the contractual. The government has no business in religion or the other way around. There is no reason for the state to discriminate. Now if a church does not want to perform services fine, that is their right. I am however a proponent of yanking non-profit tax breaks from organizations that discriminate.

          1. So if I paint my car using the same tools that I paint my house with, does my car become my house or is it actually just a car painted like a house?
            People throw birthday parties for their pets, it doesn't automatically make them people.
            Plus if you read my other comment you might see I offer other solutions.
            A man and a woman are equal, under the law and as viewed by the government, should we call both a man, because they are viewed equally?

            1. IN most states, you car IS considered an extension of your house, so yes.

              "People throw birthday parties for their pets, it doesn't automatically make them people." No, but it does celebrate them being a year older, just like it does with people, no difference.

              "A man and a woman are equal, under the law and as viewed by the government, should we call both a man, because they are viewed equally? " No, we call them both people, just like we call homosexuals people, and blacks people, and Asians people, again no difference.

              If you call it something else, it will convey different status, second hand citizens. It is either the same, or it is discrimination, there is no way around that fact.

        2. "No it's not the "christian definition"" Then how do the Christians define marriage?

          Government isn't a religion and is required to stay out of religion, and is also required not to discriminate. The two definitions and requirements are in opposition.

        1. You're correct, I forgot the states came up 3 or 5 short of ratifying it, but it did pass the house and senate. I just looked it up and they have reintroduced it into this session of congress. I wonder how far it will go this time and how much America has changed?

  2. Anyone who believes that marriage is one man and one woman should be able to have that view. They should be able to get married that way if they like, and they should be able to refer to people who form such a union to call it "marriage" as much as they like.

    And government, state or federal, should support people's freedom to use this usage, but at the same time, not force this or other usages on anyone.

    1. The constitution is clear that the federal government only has rights that are enumerated in the constitution, and all other rights are reserved for the states.

      However, having said that, I feel that marriage equality should be handles on a federal level for one simple reason. If you get married in one state, you should still be married regardless of whatever state you may move to afterwards. My wife and I do not become unmarried just because we cross the state line, so allowing each state to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage would prove, once again, that "separate but equal" is never equal, it should be the same contract across the board, and recognized in all states and by the federal government. Any less is discrimination.

      1. Ahhh, but each state has different requirements in order to get married. In some states you can marry your cousin, others you can't.
        If the SCOTUS rules that marriage is not what we know it to be, this opens the door for any combination of "consenting adults" to create whatever they want and call it a marriage.
        A simpler solution might be to make it easier to appoint an heir, give certain rights to certain people, like when you're in the hospital. You know, unclutter the living will and health directive. Stop assuming that a "union" gives rights to someone. Sometimes, you just might not want your spouse to make certain decisions.
        And if the government quit punishing couples on tax returns, then the argument is moot. I would love to file single with 1 deduction and my itemized. We wouldn't pay as much in taxes that way.

        1. That is a solution, but I wouldn't call it a simpler one, it looks like it would be a lot more red tape and confusion to me. But such a plan could work, if government got out of the marriage business altogether. No more marriage licenses or certificates, to anyone. Marriage would then return to the single definition of a religious ritual and they could approve, condone or refuse to recognize what ever they want.

          "each state has different requirements in order to get married." Yes, but once you are married, all the states honor that marriage even if you didn't and still don't meet their requirements to get married in their state.

          "If the SCOTUS rules that marriage is not what we know it to be, this opens the door for any combination of "consenting adults" to create whatever they want and call it a marriage." Other than plural marriage (which I have no problem with either), what else would such a ruling allow? "Consenting adults" pretty well sums it up, no children, no animals, no figments of you imagination, no inanimate objects.

      2. What if the balance between state and federal was struck so that…

        Sure, in some states you couldn't get gay married, but if you got gay married in another state, and then moved to a prohibitive state, the Federal law dictated that the marriage would have to be recognized (even though it couldn't have been enacted in said state.)

        1. That would work for me.

          Similar to what happens often here in Georgia, with young kids (16 years old) going to South Carolina to get married, where they have no waiting period and don't require parental consent for 16 and up to get a license. Then Georgia honors the marriage.

          1. I think that might also ease a foreseeable problem with the coming SCOTUS decision. If the SCOTUS decides for total marriage right's support nationwide, then there will be this problem for so many churches that have officials who have religious convictions prohibiting them from performing marriage acts for gays. I have to say… I'm somewhat sympathetic to that. for those pastors and priests and rabbis, I think their religious freedom is being stepped on there.

            So, there will still be some officials in gay-marriage-states that are still negatively affected as such, but this problem would be eased somewhat if they did it state-by-state this way.

            1. Well, the government can't force any church or religious official to preform same-sex ceremonies, as they are private organization and exempt from anti discrimination laws. So I don't really see this as anymore than a perceptual problem for them, and once they realize that the legislation doesn't mean that they will be forced to preform the ceremonies, that "should" alleviate that concern.

              I agree that no religion should be force to do something that is against their tenets, gays will have to find officials that are OK with gay marriage or be married by the Justice Of The Peace. There is no lack of officials that would preform such a ceremony in my area, and I live in the bible belt, so I don't see that being a problem.

    2. "The constitution is clear that the federal government only has rights that are enumerated in the constitution, and all other rights are reserved for the states. "

      Depending on the context, that sure as hell leaves a lot of power to the states. I would say to a tyrannical degree.

      If the spirit of the concept is that democracy is better served by letting culturally sensitive laws be governed locally… then OK, there's some sense to that. But that works both ways.

      With issues like marriage rights or abortion, people see strong differences in regional opinions between "Red" and "Blue" states. So the "states rights" argument speaks to that.

      However, there's a whole other dimension. Again, with states rights or abortion, in ANY GIVEN STATE – Red or Blue – there's a similar strong culturally difference in regional opinions between URBAN and RURAL sections. Why should the color of the whole state represent the whole shebang. The logic of localized politics could be even more localized.

      The argument that abortion rights or marriage rights shouldn't be a broad national one size fits all rule… well it shouldn't be so broad to force an entire state one way or another either.

      To just keep it arbitrarily at the state level – well then this is the "Tyranny of the State". And all it means is that if you are a "Blue State", the views of the metro areas hold saw over the country folks. And if you are a red state, the country mindset dominates over their cities.

      We can do better than that!

      1. Just out of curiosity, why do "WE" have to do anything? Is it your relationship? Is it mine? Why is it that any time there is a difference of opinion, "something has to be done!" And for some reason it has to be done by government.
        I would suggest that people quit turning to government to solve their personal problems. But that's just me… (and it doesn't get much more personal than an intimate relationship, does it?)

        1. that's the libertarian argument. And I like the libertarian argument when it comes to personal problems like marriage and abortion.

          but there's some trickiness there. I am libertarian minded when I say that woman should be able to control their bodies – no Uncle Sam invading anyone's private business or privates period.

          But then I must confess to my liberal / progressive side when I go steps further to say that some forms of birth control should be covered by health insurance, and that groups like Planned Parenthood should be funded. It is my view that this is for the general good – and I don't care too much about people who are mad that some amount of their tax dollars go to pay for certain things.

          1. Having it both ways is what got us into this mess. No you can't tell them it's wrong! Guess what, as a person, yes I can. Then at the same time, You must pay for their decisions! No, I shouldn't have to. It's called personal responsibility. More people should try it.
            Killing a child is NOT healthcare. Keeping the Mother and baby healthy is healthcare. If you want to kill your child, well you have to live with the choice, but don't expect me to pay for it. If it's theirs to control it's their responsibility.

            1. that cuts both ways.

              If it's the governments controls then its the governments responsibility. Using your logic, then…any forced-birth of an unwanted child should automatically qualify that child for disability-for-life.

              "If it's theirs to control it's their responsibility."

              1. Who forced them to get pregnant? And how is not making someone else pay for the abortion "forced birth?"

                And what long twisted road did you have to travel to get to any baby born would qualify for disability? That's a connection that can't be made.
                Let's try this again, personal responsibility. You have sex, you get pregnant, you either have or abort the child. You pay all costs, either way. Not mine or any other taxpayers responsibility.

                1. The twisted road is based on YOUR WORDS: "If it's theirs to control it's their responsibility."

                  In this case "their" is the governments e.g. The People e.g. you and me, and the laws we elect people to make.

                  Disallowing abortion is forced birth. Maybe you are pro-choice (just as long as you do not need to pay). If so, good for you.

                  But what makes me goddamn sick is these so called "Right-to-Lifers" who insist that every birth come to term – wanted or not – but then do they give a crap about the QUALITY of this person's life? Do they care about HUMAN SUFFERING at all?

                  NO. Their marketing term "Right to life" is horrendous bullshit. They should be called "Right to Misery". Because that's all they stand for.

                  1. Their as in the woman who wants the abortion. Do you see where I said it should be outlawed? I don't think so. I said I don't agree with it. If the decision is it's "their body" then "they" should be wholly responsible for it. Correct? Including what they do or don't do with their pregnancy.
                    I guess you would call me a forced birth. Strange, my life is not misery, I do not live in poverty, I do not take government money stolen from other hard working people.
                    Just because someone doesn't want to be a responsible adult and deal with the consequences of their actions, doesn't mean the child is worthless. Where do you get off assuming that?
                    Your statement is sick.

                    1. I saw where you said "their" and I said "that cuts both ways." and flipped it around to show you where – if its not the woman controlling whether she can abort or not… if it is instead the government controlling whether the woman can abort or not, then YOUR statement STILL HOLDS: "If it's theirs to control it's their responsibility."

                      So you are saying that your parent(s) would have aborted if the option were available? Well, I'm glad for you that you are happy in your life.

                      Its just my hell-bound uppity liberal perspective that makes me say that, your anecdotal experience on this notwithstanding, there are some people who wind up being a drag on the rest of society when abortion isn't allowed and freely available.

                      I'm not saying all unwanted pregnancies turn out that way. But some, yes, some.

                    2. I have always been a proponent of "Retroactive Abortion" ( back to – let's say – the 600th month??)

                      … But, Of course, that would 'selectively' apply to "Them" .. as determined by "Us" .. heh!

    1. So to a Christian, this means something. But not everyone in America is a Christian, and the government is suppose to be decidedly non-religious. So what difference does it make what a Christian god created, to a secular government?

        1. Are you calling my secular government a joke?! How dare you!!! lol

          And from the gnostic gospels, god created Adam, Lilith, and Eve. Which would fit with my lifestyle choice better anyway.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.