| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Marriage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 19 2003, 11:35 PM (462 Views) | |
| doctortobe | Nov 19 2003, 11:35 PM Post #1 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Do you think that the courts have the power to regulate marriage? Is marriage a religious institution and thus protected by the first ammendment or does marriage, in fact, come from the government? I'm not asking whether you support gay marriage or not, I'm just asking whether this is a legal approach for the courts to be taking. I personally think that the government has no say in what marriage is. If a certain religion wants to do gay marriage fine, other religions don't have to honor that as a real marriage if they don't want to. If the government does want to start saying what is and what is not a marriage, then they are taking the power of marriage away from religions and couples and putting it in their own hands. Is this the "Church of the United States" that the 1st Ammendment is supposed to protect against? Also, I have big issues with the courts giving the legislature an ultimatum. They pretty much said "create a law that allows civil unions between homosexuals or we will rule that homosexual marriages are constitutional". In other words, do your job our way or we will do it for you. This precedent is dangerous as it can be applied to any number of topics on both sides of the political spectrum. The only way that the other two branches of government can seem to buck the courts is to enact an ammendment to the Constitution. This is why the idea of an ammendment defining marriage is being thrown around. Is this what is going to happen? A Constitutional ammendment every time the Executive and Legislative branches are held hostage by the courts? Nobody is winning in this situation, not even homosexuals. Recent polling has shown more and more people from both the Democrat and Republican parties turning against the idea of gay marriage. Is this simple homophobia, or is it people backlashing against judges who change our way of life without any consent or representation from us? If public dissent does lead to an ammendment, and something will probably be put forth in the upcoming elections, then homosexuals aren't going to be married in the United States for a LONG time. I agree that an ammendment should be made to the Constitution. The ammendment should outline a new set of checks and balances against the court systems to keep them from single-handedly overpowering the other two branches of government! There was a time before the federal government had come to power when the courts tried to issue edict after edict on a popular law. Finally the President (Jackson?) said "You can make all the judgements you want, but if I don't agree with them, you will be enforcing them also". The courts, unable to enforce their own edicts, backed down. This may have involved the Courts putting restraints on slavery so just know that I am NOT advocating it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 19 2003, 11:46 PM Post #2 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I do not know how long it has gone on, but there have been civil marriage ceremonies for a lot longer than I can remember. We've had license requirements of r marriages. Government has been involved in marriage for a very long time. It seems likely that there are grounds for government to stick its nose into marriage. Amendments to the Constitution are another matter all together. I really do not think that we will see one... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 20 2003, 12:52 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
Let me answer by asking a question. Do you think a 30 year old male should be allowed to marry a 10 year old girl if they both consent? Should the legislature step in and say this is not acceptable? Personally, I think the legislature should step in here. If you agree with me, then you have to admit there are some cases where it is appropriate for the legislature to intervene in marriages. So the question then becomes where to draw the line. To be clear, I don't personally think the legislature should dictate whether gay marriages are acceptable. But the argument "the legislature has no business deciding on the morality of marriages and therefore gays should be allowed to marry" is somewhat flawed. Keep in mind too, not all marriages are religious. There are those that take place in a court with no religious significance. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 20 2003, 02:26 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Why would they bother ? What's the point ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Lilac | Nov 20 2003, 06:36 AM Post #5 |
|
Painting the board red
|
But there's a difference between a marriage between a 30 year old man and 10 year old girl and a gay marriage. The gay marriage is between two consenting adults. The other is not. A 10 year old girl's consent is not recognized by the law, either. This is why we have the term statutory rape. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 20 2003, 10:36 AM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Lilac, the problem is that soi-disant "gay marriage" REDEFINES marriage. That si why ImpulseEngine used the description. What if a man (or woman) wants to marry his/her dog, pony, Mercedes Benz? This is why 36 states have enacted "Defense of Marriage" laws, depicting marriage as between a man and a woman. In fact, our Congress is considering a federal version of the Defense of Marriage law. It isn't that gays/lesbians can't be in relationships, but to call it "marriage" changes EVERYTHING. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 20 2003, 12:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I see marriage as two fold: One) Its the coming together of two people that love each other Two) It is a means of changing ones (well twos) economic and social standing in society. The government (and other economic and social organizations) look at married couples differently then they look at a single individual. Since the second reason comes with benefits that are deemed from the government (and others) and the first only come with benefits from the individuals and effects no one else but the individuals involved – I would have to say that the government should be able to regulate what they call a marriage and what they would not call a marriage since they will be giving the benefits out by this criteria (and it should be the same for all). Now as far as one goes, who really cares what is involved in the coupling, If a man wants to join an origination that allows him to marry his Mercedes Benz, good for him. If a man wants to join an origination that allows him to marry a 10 year old girl, again good for him (but he better watch out because he is braking laws that have nothing to do with marriage) But the government should not have to recognize these marriages when deciding what benefits these men get. The man married to his Mercedes Benz should not be allowed to file his taxes as a married couple for example. So in short marriage in terms of love between two people should not be an issue for the government. But when comes to government benefits dew to a marriages status the government has every right to regulate what it sees as a lawful marriages. As far as the gay-marriage issue goes, they should not fight to keep government out of regulating marriages, they should fight to be recognized as a lawful marriage. what does it change? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 20 2003, 01:00 PM Post #8 |
|
Admiral
|
AdmiralBill,
Actually I used the example to establish that there are at least SOME situations where it is IMPORTANT and JUSTIFIED for the legislature to get involved in approving a marriage. Therefore, the argument that the legislature has no right to regulate marriages doesn't hold water. Dandandat,
A very wise statement. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 20 2003, 01:08 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I am kind of hesitant to get into this can of worms because it gets religious, but in answer to the question "what does it change?" Marriage is kind of special in that it is the recognition secularly by the govt. of a religious rite or sacrement. Christians believe that marriage is union made by God between a man and a woman which is akin to baptism, communion, etc. In other words it is holy and part of the church or body of Christ. Our government long ago recognized this secularly as we were and still are a nation predominantly Christian in composition. And marriage usually involves some legal issues like name change, dependent status, child custody, residence, liability, etc. So, the government kind of had to legally recognize it and paperwork it (if I may use paperwork as a verb). Anyway, this gets to the point that people like me, see a homosexual marriage as offensive to what they hold holy. A revisionist redefinition (or perversion) of something that is akin to a church. It could be seen as the government establishment of religion or religious rites. I for one, don't care if homosexual couples get together and do what ever, but don't pervert something that is very holy just to make them happy. Yes there are strictly civil marriages in this country, but it is based on the religious marraige. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Nov 20 2003, 01:39 PM Post #10 |
|
Unregistered
|
Fun topic - expolsive in every sense. I don't think that the Judicial branch has the power (or quite frankly, the desire) to "regulate" marriage. Courts do have the obligation to ensure that laws enacted by the Legislative branch of government comply with (or do not infringe upon) its (the Court's) "interpretation" of documents like the Constitution. Interpretation definitely seems to be more art than science - how esle can we account for the split decisions we see from some of our nation's most learned individuals? Marriage - is more of a religious tradition than anything - licensed by the State, of course. I think that we can attribute the irrelevance of marriage (the institution) to its religious underpinnings. People are, simply put, less superstitious in today's world than they were in past eras. Thanks to the irreverant approach that SO MANY married people in the USA take to marriage - it (marriage - the institution of marriage) in the United States has become a failed institution (my opinion). I think that a "civil status" should be available to consenting adults who wish to make a mutual commitment - a status that bestows the same basic civil and legal privileges we currently associate with traditional marriage. For those who feel the need to commemorate this "civil status" with a religious ceremony - fine, whatever. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 20 2003, 01:56 PM Post #11 |
|
Admiral
|
I respect your viewpoint on the matter and also of any Church that so desires to make this part of its moral creed. But that only means the specific Church would have the right not recognize homosexual marriages (and I would have the right not to belong to that particular Church since I disagree with that view). It does not give the Church the right to make this legislation that potentially affects people of any faith or of no faith. For example, the permissability of homosexual marriages by a Justice of the Peace would have to be decided by the appropriate legislative bodies. The same is true for the Anglican Church vs. the Presbyterian Church vs. the Catholic Church, etc. Each has the right to make its own decision for its own community, but does not have the right to make the decision for people outside its individual community. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| jjtrek | Nov 20 2003, 04:33 PM Post #12 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Interesting to note that, although the legal union of two gay people isn't recognized across state lines, the legal DIVORCE of two gay people is. Can anyone explain the difference in this to me? I don't see it myself. Why would a homosexual divorce be recognized but NOT a homosexual marriage (union)? I guess the terms "marriage" and "legal union" have to be defined. If a man and a woman are married in a religious setting, why do they need a state issued marriage license? If the state is sanctioning a marriage in a religious setting, is the state then automatically sanctioning the religion itself? Just some interesting questions and thoughts to throw out to the community. A union between two people is more than just the license or certificate. It's the legal protections and rights that this country affords the spouses. When I hear two young people living together say they don't want to get married because the marriage license is "just a piece of paper", I want to knock their heads together. They're missing out on so much that can help them. OY! Julia |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 20 2003, 05:21 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I wasn't refering to a particular church or saying that a church should be involved in making secular law regarding marriage. I was saying that marriage is a place where government and church meet. This is because government chooses to recognize marriage (which is a religious institution) for the benefit of society. This makes it a very special case and it should not be redefined by the state as it is religious in origen, not secular. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 20 2003, 05:31 PM Post #14 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Marriage as far as the government is concerned is something that transcends religion and is just the coupling of two individuals plain and simple. If the two individuals wish to attache a religious overtone to this coupling fine. I just don’t see how one religion can stake claim to it when it is practiced all across the board. Fine then you and your organization can chose to not recognize what you do not believe to be right, but the government should not have that choise, it has to see every one in the same light. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 20 2003, 05:36 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
But, Dan, you are suggesting that government ussurp the meaning of marriage and pervert it. Marriage is first and foremost: Holy Matrimony. Government does not have this right. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:14 PM Jul 11