What's your view on the supreme court's move to grant equal LGBT marriage rights?
The vote on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right that should be recognized nationwide will soon be put to the supreme court. What's your opinion?
As I understand it, until after the Civil War, marriage was the responsibility of the church. During Reconstruction the government decided to require couples to register their marriage with their county in order to regulate against interracial marriage. Now churches want to be the ones to say who can and cannot be married. I have no problem with churches only performing marriages in accordance with the dictates of their faith. The government, however, should not discriminate when it come to who gets married in a civil ceremony, just as they should not have discriminated when they got themselves into the marriage business back in the 1800s..Heterosexuals have not done such a great job of marriage that they should be telling anybody whether or not they might do it better.
I don't have a problem with gay marraige. It's hard enough finding someone in this world you want to spend your life with w/o putting on it the arbitrary conditions of race, gender, orientation etc. Live and let live.
I don't know that the precise question of LGBT marriage will come before the Supreme Court. However, we do know that it is not up to the federal government to regulate marriage. That authority is regulated to the states. Hence, the Supreme Court found the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional since it barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws. See the case: United States v. Windsor, Executor of the Estate of Spyer, et al., 570 U. S. ____ (2013).
Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in 36 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. It is also legal in the District of Columbia, and in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.
In my opinion, marriage is a constitutional right, whether it is same-sex, heterosexual, or interracial. A person is a person. We all have the right to create a family. Creating a family does not mean that you have to procreate children. Creating a family means that you get to choose who you want as a partner in this life and who you want to add to it (i.e. via adoption).
If marriage is a state issue, why do you feel it's a Constitutional right, since the Constitution applies to the federal government?
Good question, wba108. States have the right to regulate marriage and other various authority but cannot create laws contrary to the Constitution. 14th Amendment incorporates most amendments to the states: implied right to privacy & creating fami
You can't believe the founders endorsed Gay marriage or believed that equal rights or privacy applied to what they considered an immoral act.
Based upon that it could also be argued that the founding fathers did not believe blacks were created equal even though in their Declaration of Independence it was stated "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
No doubt this is isn't that cut and dry but slavery was a worldwide institution at the time and its my belief the the majority of the founders wanted to get rid of it.
I believe the founders wrote that statement from what they (believed in their hearts) even if they weren't actively living it with regards to treatment of slaves but also (women) who had to fight for (their place) at the table of equality.
Wba108, research the issue in the creation of this government. The founding fathers did not outlaw gay marriage neither did they sanction it. It was a non-issue in the creation of the U.S. Outlawing gay marriage is a relatively modern construct.
I see the relevant question as being does equal protection and implied privacy rights apply to same sex marriage according to the Constitution? I do not believe it does, therefore I see this as a state issue to be decided by the democratic process.
I don't understand why the federal gov't has anything to say about gay or heterosexual marriage as marriage of any kind is not even mentioned in the Constitution at any point!
It's a total non-issue for me. As a wise man once said, "You can f*** buffalo for all I care, as long as you don't make me watch."
In the U.S. we have (separation of church and state). We also forbid discrimination based upon race, age, gender, and sexual orientation.
Marriage licenses are a (legal document) granted by the government. Once "marriage equality" was framed as a civil rights issue it became apparent that disallowing someone to marry their mate solely based upon their gender is a form of discrimination. That's illegal.
Being a heterosexual male I don't stand to lose or gain anything by the passage of "marriage equality" laws. Live and let live.
Love & marriage between adults is a (personal) choice.
Such a mature group here. If only the whole of the world could just accept that these rights are fundamental, irrespective of one's personal opinion on the subject.
Are you implying that its immature to have a viewpoint different from your own? Doesn't it shut down honest debate to say this?
It was my understanding that people had finished commenting, but of course if there are conflicting opinions I'd like them to be shared, even if I regard them as immature but only hate speech falls into that category (in my opinion).
Daniel, I should have put the name of the case forward in my earlier comment. The Supreme Court of the United States will hear 4 major cases listed as Obergefell, et al v. Hodges in April 2015. Expect a decision in June.
I don't believe in a civil right to redefine marriage. There is no civil right for government to compel all citizens into recognizing the consenting adult relationship of your choice as a marriage.
Whatever anyone thinks about marriage, the courts shouldn't redefine it. Marriage policy should be decided by the democratic process, not dictated by judges in a decision that has no grounding in the text or logic of the Constitution.
The cases of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) explain how the Constitution applies regarding freedom to marry, establish families, and sexual relationships.
lawdoctorlee- I see the analogy between interracial marriage and same sex marriage as false and not supported by any great moral tradition. I see the majority opinions in the other cases as advancing a political agenda with regarding precedent.
Privacy is not only "sacred" but "the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights." Griswold v. Connecticut. read more
by Scott Belford 4 months ago
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.That is what these...
by leeberttea 12 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is huge and if the cour rules as I suspect will be an affirmation of liberty as the...
by Pamela Hutson 9 years ago
What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965?What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965? Do you understand the change? I get the impression a lot of people either 1) aren't interested, or 2) don't understand what...
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gunThe U.S. Supreme Court said eight years ago that the Constitution guarantees our fundamental right to keep a...
by IslandBites 7 months ago
The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico. The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to...
by Brad 7 years ago
Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?There is no constitutional right to marriage based on the constitution.Marriage until recently was the domain of the states and they set the requirement for licensing marriage.Then the federal government took over and told the...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|