Skip to comments.How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals
Posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by Kay Soze
click here to read article
An individual's choice of sexual partner is of no concern to the government, as long as they are both consenting adults entering into a non-incestous relationship.
Indeed, by drawing a legal distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the application of laws, you create a new classification of citizen.
So the result of your restriction is that We The People cannot, through our representatives, make any laws that embody this assumption. The law must treat committed homosexual relationships as of equal value to a man and woman who marry and procreate.
Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me.
NutBoy, post my entire quote next time.
"So the result of your restriction is that We The People cannot, through our representatives, make any laws that embody this assumption." -- You
Had you posted my entire quote, the fact that I set in place parameters vis a vis the contention that incest was not to be permitted, would have become apparent, and as such, the fact that I do believe that some legal restrictions are called for in this issue would have become crystal clear.
But as far as a question of which citizens get issued marriage licenses by the government and which do not, the decision must be based on existing laws.
As far as I am concerned, being a homosexual is not illegal in this nation, so laws restricting same sex couples from receiving marriage licenses do not have a legal basis.
"The law must treat committed homosexual relationships as of equal value to a man and woman who marry and procreate."
The Law may not draw a difference on citizens based on whether they are homosexual, or heterosexual as there is no legal definition of the term "homosexual", and the moment you create one, you have also created a new "type" of citizen.
It isn't illegal for a homosexual to marry, except if that homosexual wishes to marry another homosexual, and according to SCOTUS, the ability to marry the person of your choice is one of our basic civil rights.
This restriction could not possibly be based on the couple's ability to procreate, as people who are literally on their death beds can be issued marriage licenses, infertile people are not restricted from receiving marriage licenses, and people well beyond the age of procreation are issued marriage licenses.
So, if homosexuality is not a crime, and procreation is not a requirement for obtaining government issued marriage licenses, what reason does the government have to restrict homosexual marriages?
Is the law enjoined to treat committed heterosexual relationships of people who do not procreate as of equal value to a man and a woman who do?
So what? I am so weary of deflecting this ridiculous argument. Since marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, then people on their death beds and infertile men and women are welcome to get marriage licenses. OK?
The reason why marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman is that men and women in general do procreate. Marriage is important to protect the family structure, which in the vast majority of cases involve mothers and fathers.
By simply defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, there is no need to commit to those legal definitions. However, it is impossible to avoid them in a debate concerning what the Massachusetts SJC has done; i.e. declare the definition itself unconstitutional.
It is beyond argument that homosexuality directly bears on the reason the suit was brought in the first place. Therefore, whether there is any legal definition of homosexuality before or after this debacle, the issue is whether the laws of the people are required to treat the homosexuality of gay couples as equal in the eyes of the law to the heterosexuality of married couples.
The Massachusetts SJC asserts an absurdity: that it is not even rational to make this distinction. I believe myself to be rational when I say that in one category the sexual coupling can sometimes result in procreation, but in the other category, the sexual coupling can never result in procreation.
Moreover, the Massachusetts SJC is calling irrational a majority of Americans who would like to keep the definition of marriage exactly as it is.
You are still stuck on this, aren't you?
We already know that earlier legal precedent has established that the right to marry the person of one's choice is "one of the basic civil rights of man" (Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the majority opinion), so there's no "simply" doing anything of the sort you keep harping on.
You have this idea that what has already been defined as one of the "basic civil rights" of man, can be violated by "simply" violating it!
"...the Massachusetts SJC has done; i.e. declare the definition itself unconstitutional."
Because the Massachusetts State Constitution violates the civil rights of a segment of the population (homosexuals) according to the definition of the right to marry set forth in Loving v. Virginia by the SCOTUS.
"...the issue is whether the laws of the people are required to treat the homosexuality of gay couples as equal in the eyes of the law to the heterosexuality of married couples."
No, the issue is whether the people have a right to treat them differently based on a guideline that isn't applied to heterosexual couples...whether there will be an issue from the marriage or not.
By the way, a homosexual couple can procreate the same way any childless heterosexual couple can procreate, by means of surrogates, in vitro fertilization, etc.
Unless you invalidate these methods of procreation to all citizens, then set the ability to procreate as a standard for licensing of all citizens wishing to receive a marriage license, the State will be violating the basic civil right to marry the person of one's choice as defined by Loving v. Virginia.
Our side always enters legal fights as if they are to be fought in a vacuum where the other side has no argument of any merit, and when they win and we sink in the dark waters of defeat, we instantly yell "ACTIVIST", when in fact, we should be kicking ourselves in the butt for not having seen the damned iceberg in our path.
Like it or not, the decision of the Massachusetts State Supreme Court is based on solid legal precedent.
Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry in no way changes other people's ability to marry, and raise families.
"Since marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman"
That definition is about to change.
You asked me (I don't know why) whether the law is enjoined from treating heterosexual couples who cannot have children different than those who can. I said "No."
You disagree (again I don't know why). Just because there is no such law doesn't mean that such a law would be unconstitutional. "The question is not asked of them at the time of licensing" is totally irrelevant to what the Constitution allows or doesn't allow.
Rookie mistake there, the Constitution must ENPOWER the government to do specific things. In other words, the Federal government cannot do anything that the Constitution does not specifically grants it authority to do.
In turn, State governments can only do those things specifically authorized by a State's Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the Feds or the State, falls back on the citizens.
A State may not violate civil rights by passing a law.
This refers to:
I believe myself to be rational when I say that in one category the sexual coupling can sometimes result in procreation, but in the other category, the sexual coupling can never result in procreation. -NutCrackerBoy, 408
What I was saying was that the main purpose of marriage (from the point of view of the state) is to regulate the ramifications of procreation and that is a very rational reason to define the institution as the union of one man and one woman - the same way it has been defined in church and civilization since antiquity. But you asked something different. Let me take two iterations to rephrase your question. You tell me if by doing so its sense is lost.
Rephrase #1: If lawmakers acting on our behalf (or activist judges) redefine marriage so that marriage licenses are issued to same-sex couples, how will it diminish the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate?
Rephrase #2: How will marriage licenses being issued to same-sex couples diminish the effectiveness of marriage from its main purpose - to regulate the ramifications of procreation.
I think this is a reasonable (after the rephrasing) question. My answer is two-fold:
1. Litigation will begin at once to change the legal structures of marriage to better accomodate same-sex couples. These changes will be impossible to resist if the equal protection argument holds sway. Marriage will be transformed into something different. Something that by definition has nothing to do with procreation.
2. It is just illogical to include a class which never procreates into a legal status whose main purpose has to do with procreation.
Using that definition in law does not create a second-class citizen of someone who:
a. does not want to marry a person of the opposite sex
b. would like to form a union with a person of the same-sex and have the state treat that union exactly as it does marriage.
It seems you will throw out the law as unconstitutional because the constitution did not specifically empower government to ask that question. Your position is absurd.
Your lack of understanding of our system of government is abysmal.
The only powers that government have are those specifically granted to them by the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Translation for the hard of understanding:
The Constitution grants powers, those powers not granted specifically to the Feds by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States by the same Constitution, fall on the States, or the people.
The Feds have no powers other than those specifically granted to them by the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.