| Should the US Federal Government Recognize Same-Sex Marriages? |
| Yes |
|
84% |
[ 58 ] |
| No |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
| Just display the results |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 69 |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4882
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ruveyn wrote: | Marriage laws are for the States to decide, not the Central Government. There is no authorization in the Constitution for Congress to pass any laws defining marriage. That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
ruveyn |
That is what President Bush sought to push through--a constititional amendment that defined marriage. Absent that, it looks like the federal government is required to recognize marriages that have been approved by the various states (including homosexual marriages), and that homosexual marriages that have been undertaken in any state must be recognized by all states, at least if the constitution as written means anything at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4882
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, the federal government did previously pass laws regarding marriage: specifically, polygamous marriage, with the Edmunds Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act
This law was created to target Mormons, and many Mormon men were prosecuted. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico because his parents had fled the USA for Mexico to avoid prosecution for polygamy.
Mr. Romney's attitude might be: "If my people can't enjoy polygamous marriages, then homosexuals can't have marriages, either. Tit for tat."
| Quote: |
Some modern scholars suggest that the Edmunds Act may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.
The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it.
All elected offices in the Utah Territory were vacated, an election board was formed to issue certificates to those who both denied a belief in polygamy and did not practice it, and new elections were held territory-wide.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
MONKEY
Sunshine Groovetrip
Joined: Jan 04, 2009
Age: 20
Posts: 9775
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well duh, people should marry who they want. It's not harming anyone. And where do hermaphrodites fit in this?
_________________
The butterfly, the tiger, just another shadow in the stone
Flamingo future dinosaur underneath the urban sun |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4882
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If the Defense of Marriage Act proves unconstitutional, and homosexual marriage becomes the law of the nation, then what would stop the Edmunds Act from also being declared unconstitutional? At present, none of the states permit polygamous marriages. But, if Utah were to go in for polygamy once again, would the other states (and the federal government) be obliged to recognize polygamous marriages from Utah? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29320
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | | If the Defense of Marriage Act proves unconstitutional, and homosexual marriage becomes the law of the nation, then what would stop the Edmunds Act from also being declared unconstitutional? At present, none of the states permit polygamous marriages. But, if Utah were to go in for polygamy once again, would the other states (and the federal government) be obliged to recognize polygamous marriages from Utah? |
One of the conditions for Utah being admitted into the Union was that they forever illegalize polygamy. If this condition were not imposed then every other State would have had to recognize polygamous marriages in Utah has legal in their State.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 18, 2012
Posts: 71
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Subotai wrote: | | YippySkippy wrote: | | Atheists can get baptized too, if they like. Baptism is still a religious institution. |
Marriage and baptism are two different things. Marriage happens and has happened all over the world for ages, including non Abrahamic parts. |
I agree. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that is recognized by the courts and may be performed by either clergy or a government official. Baptism is a ceremony performed by clergy with ritual and symbolism that is intended to transcend the physical realm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperlexian
loves the man who typed too much and ran outta spa
Joined: Jul 22, 2010
Age: 41
Posts: 21969
Location: with bucephalus
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
moved from Politics, Philosophy, and Religion to LGBT Discussion
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493 |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4882
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | ArrantPariah wrote: | | If the Defense of Marriage Act proves unconstitutional, and homosexual marriage becomes the law of the nation, then what would stop the Edmunds Act from also being declared unconstitutional? At present, none of the states permit polygamous marriages. But, if Utah were to go in for polygamy once again, would the other states (and the federal government) be obliged to recognize polygamous marriages from Utah? |
One of the conditions for Utah being admitted into the Union was that they forever illegalize polygamy. If this condition were not imposed then every other State would have had to recognize polygamous marriages in Utah has legal in their State.
ruveyn |
Polygamy was America's big moral issue of the 19th century. It wasn't so long ago that the idea of homosexual marriage would have seemed absurd to most people. Perhaps polygamy will eventually crop up again as an issue.
I think that the Immigration Department frowns upon people in polygamous marriages (in countries where polygamy is legal) migrating to the USA.
The president of South Africa, and the King of Swaziland, are both polygamists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | ArrantPariah wrote: | | If the Defense of Marriage Act proves unconstitutional, and homosexual marriage becomes the law of the nation, then what would stop the Edmunds Act from also being declared unconstitutional? At present, none of the states permit polygamous marriages. But, if Utah were to go in for polygamy once again, would the other states (and the federal government) be obliged to recognize polygamous marriages from Utah? |
One of the conditions for Utah being admitted into the Union was that they forever illegalize polygamy. If this condition were not imposed then every other State would have had to recognize polygamous marriages in Utah has legal in their State.
ruveyn |
Polygamy was America's big moral issue of the 19th century. It wasn't so long ago that the idea of homosexual marriage would have seemed absurd to most people. Perhaps polygamy will eventually crop up again as an issue.
I think that the Immigration Department frowns upon people in polygamous marriages (in countries where polygamy is legal) migrating to the USA.
The president of South Africa, and the King of Swaziland, are both polygamists. |
Traditionally, polygamy was synonymous with polygyny (except for a small number of cultures that practiced polyandry, or group marriages between two men and two women). I can understand why people would object to these male-dominated harem structures. But polyamory in a modern, gender-equal society is very different, imho. I don't think that anything speaks against allowing polyamorous people to marry all their lovers. I mean, polyamorists are living in group relationships anyway, with or without marital status. We might as well allow them to make it official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
YippySkippy
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that is recognized by the courts and may be performed by either clergy or a government official. Baptism is a ceremony performed by clergy with ritual and symbolism that is intended to transcend the physical realm. |
It is my assertion that marriage should not be recognized by the courts, and that weddings should not be officiated by government officials. Not in a country that intends to seperate Church from State, at any rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YippySkippy wrote: | | Quote: | | I agree. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that is recognized by the courts and may be performed by either clergy or a government official. Baptism is a ceremony performed by clergy with ritual and symbolism that is intended to transcend the physical realm. |
It is my assertion that marriage should not be recognized by the courts, and that weddings should not be officiated by government officials. Not in a country that intends to seperate Church from State, at any rate. |
What makes you think that marriage is a church matter? There are countries where up to 85% of the population is non-religious, and yet couples still get married in those countries. It is clearly not a religious institution, no matter how desperately the Christian churches are trying to make it one (which is very insulting to cultures with non-Christian majority religions, which have practiced marriage long before the rise of Christianity, and even before the rise of Judaism). |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YippySkippy wrote: | | It is my assertion that marriage should not be recognized by the courts, and that weddings should not be officiated by government officials. Not in a country that intends to seperate Church from State, at any rate. |
So what, then, is the government to do about the hundreds of issues that the law treats differently when they concern spouses?
-If government is not in the business of marriage, then neither is government in the business of divorce. What, then, is the interest of a divorced spouse in the matrimonial home?
-Is government also to abandon its parens patriae jurisdiction and allow religious institutions to decide matters of child custody and guardianship?
-Are spouses no longer privileged from being compelled to testify against each other in criminal matters?
-Upon intestacy, a surviving spouse is entitled to an interest in the estate of the deceased spouse?
-What is the tax treatment of amounts provided by one spouse into the retirement savings of the other?
-Who is competent to provide medical instruction on behalf of an unconcious or an incapacitated patient?
Those who utter the siren call for government to get out of the marriage business do so in ignorance of the mischief that their proposals would create.
The proper remedy is not to get government out of the marriage business--it is to get religious institutions out of the marriage business.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
YippySkippy
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | -If government is not in the business of marriage, then neither is government in the business of divorce. What, then, is the interest of a divorced spouse in the matrimonial home?
-Is government also to abandon its parens patriae jurisdiction and allow religious institutions to decide matters of child custody and guardianship?
-Are spouses no longer privileged from being compelled to testify against each other in criminal matters?
-Upon intestacy, a surviving spouse is entitled to an interest in the estate of the deceased spouse?
-What is the tax treatment of amounts provided by one spouse into the retirement savings of the other?
-Who is competent to provide medical instruction on behalf of an unconcious or an incapacitated patient? |
Civil Unions. Not just for gay people, for everyone.
If some couples also choose to get married, then that will be nobody's business but their own. No license, no paperwork, no government record-keeping involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally I like the proposal of the Green Party of England and Whales: to extend the right to a marriage to same sex couples and to extend the right to a civil union to opposite sex couples. That way if people don't like the religious connotations of marriage they can opt for the civil union. I don't know if it's really all that necessary a thing to do, but I can't imagine it would cost too much, so why not. I know that John Barrowman refuses to refer to his civil union as a marriage because of the religious background, so obviously some people would still have a preference.
For myself, I'm somewhat of a romantic, so if I'm ever lucky enough to find a boyfriend (some days I wonder) I'd like to get married some day. Although I'm an atheist, so if I'd prefer that no priest was involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YippySkippy wrote: | | Quote: | -If government is not in the business of marriage, then neither is government in the business of divorce. What, then, is the interest of a divorced spouse in the matrimonial home?
-Is government also to abandon its parens patriae jurisdiction and allow religious institutions to decide matters of child custody and guardianship?
-Are spouses no longer privileged from being compelled to testify against each other in criminal matters?
-Upon intestacy, a surviving spouse is entitled to an interest in the estate of the deceased spouse?
-What is the tax treatment of amounts provided by one spouse into the retirement savings of the other?
-Who is competent to provide medical instruction on behalf of an unconcious or an incapacitated patient? |
Civil Unions. Not just for gay people, for everyone.
If some couples also choose to get married, then that will be nobody's business but their own. No license, no paperwork, no government record-keeping involved. |
So it's simply a matter of semantics. I think it's a little too late for Christian churches to try and trademark the word "marriage". This word, and its equivalent in other languages, has been in use for quite some time in almost all human cultures. People aren't going to start saying "will you civil-unionize me".
Everyone should have the right to marry another adult person. If a couple wants some special divine blessing on top of a legal, state-recognized marriage, they can have a church or temple ceremony and call that marriage too. The churches can make the latter exclusive to opposite-sex couples, same-race couples or blue-eyed and blond people for all I care, but the secular and legally recognized form of marriage should be available to all couples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
