Is Gay Marriage A Human Right Or A State Right?

We are told we have to respect homosexuals and not criticize them. I do not think about them or their idiotic desire to get "married," an institution that is doubtful for people of any sexual persuasion. Perhaps they should only be allowed to legally marry if they adopt; marriage is, afer all, a union that basically supports children's security.

I just wish the media would leave them out of my living room.

Bob

Despite what the churches teach, homosexuality is a common and uncontrolled manifestation of nature. It is occurring naturally all the time. Suppose, men were denied basic rights because of the onset of erectile dysfunction? Another natural occurrence in nature… Some would argue that sex is an obligation within marriage. Should we prevent all men that can’t perform sex with the opposite gender the same rights and privileges as those who can? They would no longer get the tax benefits allowed by marriage. They would no longer be allowed to visit the ones they love in hospitals. They would not be allowed any government benefits which were incurred by their partners… No… It is immoral and unethical to prohibit the extension of rights and privileges, because religious doctrine from thousands of years ago dictates such attitudes and to say that you don’t want to see it in your living room, typifies the attitude which lacks empathy, openness and acceptance of all the diversity that humanity has to offer us.

To me it is extremely simple.

All citizens have the same rights under the Constitution regardless of their sexual, racial, gender, etc.

The day the government issued the first marriage license getting that license became a right. It became even more engrained when things like tax forms began giving different rates for married vs single and increased when the recognition of marriage became involved in things like hospital visitation and finally when the law became a part of marriage and divorce.

All that said it is against the Constitution to deny this right to any group. Therefore any couple of consenting adults has the inalienable right to get married if they so desire.

Very helpful hub. I think we need another decade or so of states deciding for themselves. If we look at it the otherway, it would mean that the political elite in the national capital would decide for Wyoming and California the same. As a state right the people decide.

I hate to see this problem drag on...and I cry for the number of people at this date who must miss out, not only on equal rights, but also on living out their lives unable to share in the 'privileges' of marriage (hospital visiting to name one). Nowhere in this debate are hormones and chromosomes considered. Whatever happened to 'born that way'. Thanks for sharing your views which mirror mine; same upbringing by the way.

MobyWho, I am sorry but a firm foundation in law and constitutionality like a fine wine as yourself, it may well take all of your four decades to matue. We want instant, but true beauty and right takes time. I think we are doing well.

I agree. But I am old and accept time as a reconciler of grievance.

May God bless our path and enlighten us as to righteousness today.

Hi Eric - at four decades, I was 40; at eight decades, I was 80 - and still pumping blood. I'm putting myself in the shoes of older gay couples who will die before they are accepted. My spouse (male) is 93 and we both feel for couples our age who will never see equality. How frustrating! Why should kindness be delayed?

If we look to a law or others for our equality we will never be fulfilled. I hope no law dictates where my love and kindness goes. I note with some glee the boy scouts are reevaluating. I know that in my congregation the youth are completely accepting. And I see the National Cathedral performing the rites without discrimination. And we have a President with a kinder view. I hope we continue to progress.

We are on the same page. Thanks for clarifying.

One question: who decided what human rights are?

Thank you for replying, HSchneider

But can marriage be considered a right? Why is not taking drugs a right? Or prostitution?

But if I understand correctly, there was a time when gay marriage was banned in all states, right? Forgive me if i'm wrong here, then according to your last sentence "Taking illegal drugs and prostitution are banned for everyone so do not fall under the 14th amendment," gay marriage shouldn't also have fallen under the 14th amendment.

Thank you for the polite debate, sir! Have a good day!

I have contemplated and studied. For our United States of America our forefathers made clear a mandate that all be treated equally under the law I speak not for religions. I speak not of my preference. But I find no legal reason that denial should be given these citizens. I wish that there were another "name" we could give their union. It is against my spiritual grain. But I dig deep and cannot deny a happiness and security given me to those who are different. If they are to struggle and strain and work hard on a love between two, who am I to preclude them from a dignity I am afforded. Society and Religion I hope you are not angry with me.

Well said Eric... Bold thoughts spoken aloud are the random change in our cultural DNA. Some thoughts survive and become a common trait in our society and others do not. But if the thought is not shared, regardless of its intent, it can never be tested and we will never grow as a society.

Extremely well researched and articulated Hub (a rare occurrence here on Hubpages). It stuck to the facts and reveled in the spirit in which this nation was created---something everyone, especially those who are relegious, have enjoyed and taken for granted for over 200 years.

I thank you in the utmost!

Marriage is a status granted by Churches and Civil Unions are a State Right since all States Issue them and not the Federal Government. My opinion is Marriage or Civil Unions are an entitlement program and one all men should avoid since they are entitled nothing. Same sex couples will probably benefit most by the fact that no one will be entitled except maybe the Lawyers who our always entitled. We should just end the argument by banning all marriage and civil unions.

The state cannot grant a positive right to an immoral act. Acts of sodomy are contrary to nature and regardless of what euphemism your shroud it in, it's still an immoral act. No one has a "right" to act immorally and while the state may possess the power to grant such a right, it lacks the authority to do so.

Bibowen, you make a good point. The state does provide a society with its rules, in the form of laws. Society is also responsible for the management of the state. It's with gratitude that I can say society has evolved past most of the archaic definitions for morals, that were placed on us through bronze age religion. Just as witch hunts and slavery were justified in the Bible, society evolved past those misguided archaic morals. Society will evolve and the rights of homosexuals will be granted, because no sex act between to consenting adults is immoral in an evolved culture. Two to Three thousand year old writings do not hold water as they once did, because as we become more intelligent as creatures of this earth, we are better able to discern right from wrong, truth from BS, and anyone who continues to cling to the old ways, will be identified more and more as the extremists and crackpots, just as KKK members are, when they belittle other races in most of our society today.

To Bibowen,

While I see your point, and I also find the thought of homosexual sex repulsive (not speaking as a religious person), there is one thing where I disagree with you. You can't really say that it is unnatural, because it happened on God's territory.

The thing about homosexuality is that... how to put it... it feels like they did not deserve equality. Let me explain: rights are not God-given. If God could give everyone rights, North Korean people would also be happy. In almost every country in the world, rights had to be fought for.

I don't see that here. I don't see LGBT have a leader, I don't see them bleeding and sweating. Television shows, musicians like Lady Gaga and tolerant TV moderators are doing the fighting for them.

Black people had MLK, Malcolm X. Americans had the founding fathers. Russians paid an enormous price in the World War 2 to not become slaves. But what did the LGBT movement do to be happy?

Bibowen; I'm not quite sure how you want to define "natural"?

Homosexuality occurs in most species of animal, bird and even reptiles, fish and invertebrates.

It undoubtedly occurred in man since we first walked on 2 feet and has been around long before the first religions were ever dreamt up.

Immoral? According to whom? Apparently according to your faith, but that means nothing to those outside of your faith. Just as other gods probably don't mean much to you, yours means just as little to others outside your faith.

I happen to be straight. But just as I was born straight and am attracted only to women, homosexuals are born with a natural attraction to their same sex. That doesn't make it unnatural or dirty and outside of some narrow views it isn't a sin to be different so long as one isn't trying to force another to take an active part in their activities.

Great discussion - polite, on-point, and substantive - shows the importance of separation of church and state (n.b. small print), also the different viewpoints of religion and science.

What is to be gained is universal respect for others' mores as long as they cause no harm to an individual. When something causes apparent harm, we revert to 'law of the land' - and 'round and 'round we go.

@Borsia, I appreciate your usual calm comments...

Not sure whether the separation of church and state is possible, at least not in your country. Saying, "I'm not a Christian" already disqualifies you from running for higher office (and it doesn't matter whether you plan to bomb the living hell out of a country. As long as you say "I'm a Christian," everything is fine).

*Slightly off-topic. Sorry :)

We must be tolerant that he Law fluctuates by the decade. Perhaps that is wrong or right.

Who decides how elastic the Constitution should be?

Thank you, Hschneider!

A few questions if I may (you, obviously, are a smart man):

1) When your government passed the Patriot Act and, correct me if I'm wrong, the NDAA, how did they interpret the Constitution?

2) Now if you already have two laws that are unconstitutional, how reliable is the judgement of your Supreme Court?

It will be interesting to see the why's and how's of the Court's decision on these 2 cases.

Ms. Windsor's (a Betty White look-alike) case could cause the Court to invalidate DOMA, however, since the Act says that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from states where they are recognized,

while also stating that the definition of marriage is man/woman only within the scope of the federal government and its actions,

then individual states may still be able to define a legal marriage in any way they wish, while now having to recognize legal marriages from other states - invalidating DOMA will not change this.

In the 2nd case, we may see the Court question how much legal breathing room is given to citizen referendums, such as Prop 8. How much does the Court want to infringe on the voice of the people?

On a side note, whether you are gay, straight, or somewhere in between, I highly recommend the Olympia Dukakis movie, "Cloudburst;" a lesbian couple escape from their nursing home and head up to Canada to get married. Along the way, they pick up a young, male hitchhiker.

Extremely good movie.

Thanks for raising this important matter! All humans should have equal rights, we can't divide us into groups depending on who we love. It is all about fear, fear for what is different, blacks, women, gays, muslims. Stop being so afraid and let love fill your hearts, that is what I like to say.

HSchneider--I greatly appreciate your perspective, approach, and dialogue. Thank you.

This hub, as well as comments give me hope for our future. I would especially like to commend those of the "golden" generation that have expressed support for our gay brothers and sisters. I live in Kentucky a red state through and through and all of my older family and most you encounter here possess strongly conservative views (you can imagine the ridicule I receive as a young liberal). I do not get to see people from older generations showing this type of support or being open to evolving ideas and it is refreshing.

I also so much appreciate the questioning of the past rulings when it comes to separation of church and state. I tell people this all the time when they say "according to the Bible this is wrong". That is how you determine what is right or wrong but it is not how I do, nor how the government should. I want so badly to see the LGBT community gain this human right as I see it. I only hope, like some of you, it does not take 40 years, I hope it doesn't take 5 years

Technically marriage is performed by a church and a Civil Union is performed by the State. But who cares as long as you know that all of it is about money and Earthly desires. Life is always about choice, you know Heaven and Hell, Right and Wrong and all that non-sense. The desire to not be a robot gave you a choice here on Purgatory and I say enjoy your few moments here. Be an atheist, curse God because he has so much to do with this place and how it is turning out to be such a wonderful place. So what is after gay marriage more crap about how we do not understand it. We are so desensitized to sex today that we are giving pointers to the screen. So politically correct we can not keep up with the next correction, did we change another word to mean something else? Honestly, it got old a long time ago and we never got equality for all the other folks. I am still working on the whole race thing and wondering if people who believe in God are being persecuted by people like you. It seems that being a nasty person to believers of God is okay. You put them all in one basket and assume that they all believe the same things. I hate to inform you that your Government probably has no Leaders with any so called Christian values. I have no idea who the Christian right is or why any of them would donate money to these people. I honestly despise the fact that they claim they are supporting such values they do not have. I call that hypocrisy and we live in it every day. I am not even assuming a gay person is going to hell but I am not the translator, nor did I write the Bible. All I can tell you is that you have to figure it out on your own and its a long road if you do the work. Its not sitting in a pew, singing and blindly believing what you our told. You actually have to try and not live in hypocrisy. The only way I can ignore a load of stuff I really have no desire to even care about is to go back to my closet.

Federal government should stay out of the affairs of the state. The people of each state should solve their own problems. This is what Washington and a few Founding Fathers were talking about when they did not trust a central government.

The question of which issues should be states' rights and which should be federal are at the core of constitutional debates. Central to these debates should be consideration of inter-state application, i.e. states having to recognize another state's laws. Driving licenses, for example, should not be too different and should have mutual recognition (as they do) because logically drivers will be crossing state borders. Gambling is one of the most diverse regulatory areas (with differences between gambling venues even within a state, such as between casino gambling, bingo, or lotteries) but this makes sense given that these venues are in fixed locations---not an "inter-state" issue (as opposed to online gambling). Marriage licenses, on the other hand, have national repercussions (tax codes, social security beneficiaries) and inter-state concerns (relocation to another state where one's marriage may not be recognized, or having an accident on vacation where access to one's spouse in hospital may be denied, etc.)...so I think it appropriate to be addressed at a federal level. The Framers of the Constitution threw out the Articles of Confederation in favor of a stronger central government because certain issues proved ineffective & chaotic when decentralized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confedera...

HSchneider---I actually agree with you wholeheartedly. It is a human rights and civil rights issue, and that is why I support "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". It is also a matter of church and state separation, as discussed above, by which I specifically mean that the licensing of domestic partners by the U.S. government should be blind to all demographics except legal adulthood and citizenship, while the sacred concept of marriage can continue to be honored within personal religious traditions. Semantically, I would be in support of government licensing under the name "civil union" exclusively, but since "marriage" has become secularized for a long time, it seems too revisionist to suggest taking it out of the secular sphere entirely...I simply feel that any civic privileges should be accessed equally, regardless of any qualification beyond adult citizenship. I'll tell you what the next big frontier of marriage will be after this gay marriage thing is settled---polyamory. The concept of government sanctifying a religious institution by arbitrarily extending social and financial privileges is antiquated. There is an inherent moralistic judgment of "worthiness" in many policies (such as with welfare) that has no place in a democratic, secular government. For those who say "America is founded on Christian values", I would invite you to carefully examine not just the church affiliations of the Founding Fathers, but the principle of religious tolerance that this country was founded upon. Our society now belongs to its voting, living citizens....of every creed, race, gender, and faith.

I am personally vested in this issue though (being currently married to a woman after 2 failed marriages to men, so I really feel the social differences and also the inadequacy of a term like "gay marriage" because human relationships are not binary but encompass a whole range), and I know that others have similarly strong but negative attitudes towards homosexuality.

So I sometimes like to approach such a controversial topic from different angles, hence my comments above on interstate concerns. You are right---a federal law could go either way. The states which have passed marriage equality acts have made huge waves in the national debate, but it must be resolved nationally to resolve what is (as you said) a question of equal opportunity under the law.

Regardless of my personal interest in marriage equality, I intellectually see this as a legal issue of government authority. Let's say it wasn't in this "gay" cultural arena that offends some people...consider the same concepts of equality under the law about a different license....pretend we are talking about a driver's license: I do not need to know or agree with the person driving on the road next to me. But we obey the same traffic laws, we keep to our own cars, and we co-exist. My fellow driver's creed or lifestyle or employment status or gender or race is completely irrelevant. We have equal access as citizens to the driving test, participate in the same market system of auto ownership, insurance, registration, licensing, etc., and need never be affected by each other's lives at all, so long as we do not violate the rules of the road. There need be no personal attacks or trying to convert each other to political views or any other irrelevant concerns....can't every legal privilege be regarded this objectively? Would personal or moral "worthiness" under a theological mindset ever be allowed in regulatory debates about drivers licensing? The reason cultural mores are irrelevant to the marriage debate is because the source of the disputed privileges is a supposedly secular government---not a church, not a cultural organization; these are civic privileges extended to citizens under a law that is democratic in theory.

Thank you again for initiating and moderating this discussion.

~Lurana @MrsBrownsParlour

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. There is no such thing no matter how many perverts try to make it seem sane and logical.

Human rights should certainly prevail when it comes to whom one wants to include in their lives. Who among us would want our friendships legislated? Why should marriage be any different? Consenting adults who are not harming anyone else should be left alone to pursue their happiness in their own way.

Lots of good points and information here.

Wielkie dzięki za dobry wpis :)

http://convenient.ro

at the end of the day i dont care what anyone thinks marriage should be... ill tell you what it is, a legal contract. to specify the terms of certain contracts to be only applicable to be entered by certain parties is discrimination. flat out, bottom line.

This one is just not true. Restrictions on who can contract are normal. Restrictions on what can be contracted for are normal. Children, public policy, incompetents, people required to be licensed, jurisdictions are all reasons to limit abilities of people to contract. 14th is not meant to prohibit rationale laws --- Sorry to tell you, a blind man cannot contract with the state to drive a vehicle. A 10 year old boy cannot contract with the school to use the girls bathroom.

HSchneider, The states do have a right to determine for themselves what a marriage is. That is established. Equal protection comes in the form of providing the same benefits to gay/lesbian unions as to hetero here to for traditional marriages. Some are offended by separate but equal. Note here that bathrooms are separate and require "same sex" -- strange isn't it. It is bad form if we take a healthy man a break his legs so that there is equality for the handicapped. Much better we give the disadvantaged separate parking spaces, and separate ramps. States should not be required to obliterate current marriages to make room for something that is different.

Do not tear down the beautiful spiral staircase. Just put in a lift.

Alas how true, Our interracial marriage still carries a stigma people still walk up and think it fine to say that our boy "oh THOSE children are so pretty". Those??? A great hub friend and a great topic. Let us grow.

I'm glad to see they are upholding the Constitution at this point.

They did a little more than punt on CA's prop 8 stating that the proponents had no grounds to challenge the lower court striking down the proposition thus making same sex marriage legal in CA.

You can bet the Gov Brown will support legality.

California Courts do not issue marriage licenses. They are done county by county in accordance with state law. But not by Gubernatorial executive order. And in all fifty states there is separation of powers. The executive branch cannot order the Supreme Court which runs the courts.

I just read an AP report on this and it was horrible and misinformed.

Yes the State of California will begin to operate as though Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional. But not in the lame way it is being reported. Brown was shamefully grandstanding.

That is all Brown has ever done. He was one of the worst Govs' CA ever had and now he's back so expecting anything else from him is being naïve.

In California like many states - esp NY, has an executive branch that will poll until they figure out which side hurts them the most.

The Prop 8 case has nothing to do with the constitutional validity of the Proposition. I think that is fine. If the California public does not insist on Prop 8 being enforced then it will not be. I do not think they will. The DOMA/Shea case has finally defined marriage. Our Supreme Court did it like the so many years ago decided that a Black human being is a "Man" and a Woman is a Citizen. It bothers me, I am old fashioned and quite hetero. I do not like marriage being defined by a Union that is not Hetero. Big deal. I love all people and if they need this then I must be for it. I do not have a choice. Haters can have a choice I suppose. There are a lot of good people out there, that will thank the Supremes, not because they want same sex marriage approved, but because they finally defined marriage for us.

It makes be proud now to say -- "they are married" and to end the argument by saying "because the United States of America's Supreme Court says they are".

Those folks are smart. They love our country and the constitution for which it stands. They are learned and compassionate. Maybe, God does not like it but I think God must as God made this great nation under God, not yours or mine but under the God.

The Supreme court struck down an appeal to a lower court, saying that the petitioners had no standing to file such an appeal, which said that prop 8 isn't constitutional and throwing out the prop and its ban on gay marriage.

This means that the lower court's decision stands and gay marriage can't be banned. This clears the way for marriages to resume and be considered legal.

First of all, the vast majority of marriage has nothing at all to do with sex. People have sex (both "good" heterosexual sex, and "disgusting immoral" homosexual sex) constantly, every second of every day since before recorded time. There are plenty of married people who rarely have sex with each other, and many who never do. Does that invalidate their marriages? Should so-called "normal" heterosexual people first have to prove their fertility or ability to perform sexually?

Companionship, tax advantages, making a public and ceremonious commitment to each other, guardianship responsibilities, and having someone legally bound to you for the purposes of lifelong care giving are all pretty important aspects of marriage that can really only be done under the legal imprimatur of state recognized marriage. So drop the argument that marriage is a license from the state to have sex (and the ridiculous argument that some types of sex are so "icky" that we wouldn't want to do anything in the name of the state to encourage it).

I should have clarified that I was responding to some of the previous comments by readers, not your essay.

Wow HSchneider, that is a very nice way to look at it. Here is a weird twist I have an ex-wife sad to say. But we have never stopped loving and caring for one another. Causes a little problem with new spouses but they get it.