The Supreme Court expands Gay Marriage in the US

Page 2 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

19 Oct 2014, 9:13 am

The problem is that every federal court ruling in favor of gay marriage should be banned as outside the court's jurisdiction.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental social institution. Society defines what it is, not the courts. A change in the definition of what qualifies as "marriage" needs to be done by an overwhelming majority of the populace, not the opinion of a few activist judges...or even a panel of 12-13 judges.

We ban bigamy....it's upheld.

We ban polygamy....it's upheld.

We ban drug use as part of a religious observance....it's upheld.

There is no way to say that same-sex marriage is somehow protected.

To introduce voting rights for women, we did a constitutional amendment expanding the right to vote to women. It was not done by an act of the courts...even though you probably could have argued for it in a court of law.

To introduce voting rights for all citizens regardless of race, we did a constitutional amendment.

Likewise, if the gay rights community could get enough support to push through a constitutional amendment expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, that's the only appropriate way to "redefine" marriage in the USA.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Oct 2014, 10:53 am

zer0netgain wrote:
The problem is that every federal court ruling in favor of gay marriage should be banned as outside the court's jurisdiction.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental social institution. Society defines what it is, not the courts. A change in the definition of what qualifies as "marriage" needs to be done by an overwhelming majority of the populace, not the opinion of a few activist judges...or even a panel of 12-13 judges.

We ban bigamy....it's upheld.

We ban polygamy....it's upheld.

We ban drug use as part of a religious observance....it's upheld.

There is no way to say that same-sex marriage is somehow protected.

To introduce voting rights for women, we did a constitutional amendment expanding the right to vote to women. It was not done by an act of the courts...even though you probably could have argued for it in a court of law.

To introduce voting rights for all citizens regardless of race, we did a constitutional amendment.

Likewise, if the gay rights community could get enough support to push through a constitutional amendment expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, that's the only appropriate way to "redefine" marriage in the USA.


For a couple of points you made-

You said society determines marriage. Well, my state of Washington made same sex marriage legal by popular vote. By your standards, would marriage equality be banned here in Washington because much of the rest of the country doesn't like it?
And banning drugs in religious observance? Southeastern Native Americans are allowed to use peyote in their rites, even though federal and state governments had originally tried to take that right away from them. I know this, because my Lutherans - from the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, to the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church In America - had fought, alongside other denominations, to allow drug use in their religion. My own church body allows alcohol use in communion for underage members. By your argument, that would be illegal.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

19 Oct 2014, 5:56 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
MARRIAGE is a fundamental social institution. Society defines what it is, not the courts. A change in the definition of what qualifies as "marriage" needs to be done by an overwhelming majority of the populace, not the opinion of a few activist judges...or even a panel of 12-13 judges.


You are conflating religious and cultural marriage with legal. Herein lies the problem. However as I understand the ruling they are ruling on the constitutional rights.

I support your religious freedom though, legal marriage should be abolished entirely. It is not business of the state. Therefore your church is free to practice what it preach, and you have no right to determine what Hindu marriages entail, etc

Legal marriage in not a sanctity or an institution, that is up to the cultural or religious practices, which are personal to you.