jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (26 posts)

What's your view on the supreme court's move to grant equal LGBT marriage rights

  1. Daniel Bassilios profile image80
    Daniel Bassiliosposted 3 years ago

    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?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12146028_f260.jpg

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image82
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. Genna East profile image91
      Genna Eastposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, Kathleen.  Well stated. I also support churches' rights to  perform ceremonies according to their beliefs.  But I also feel that the government should not discriminate in civil ceremonies.

  3. sokar505 profile image63
    sokar505posted 3 years ago

    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.

  4. lawdoctorlee profile image85
    lawdoctorleeposted 3 years ago

    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).

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If marriage is a state issue, why do you feel it's a Constitutional right, since the Constitution applies to the federal government?

    2. lawdoctorlee profile image85
      lawdoctorleeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You can't believe the founders endorsed Gay marriage or believed that equal rights or privacy applied to what they considered an immoral act.

    4. dashingscorpio profile image86
      dashingscorpioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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."

    5. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    6. dashingscorpio profile image86
      dashingscorpioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    7. lawdoctorlee profile image85
      lawdoctorleeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    8. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    9. tsadjatko profile image60
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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!

  5. FatFreddysCat profile image99
    FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago

    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."

    1. lawdoctorlee profile image85
      lawdoctorleeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      OMG...I never heard that saying before but it is hilarious!

  6. dashingscorpio profile image86
    dashingscorpioposted 3 years ago

    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.

  7. Daniel Bassilios profile image80
    Daniel Bassiliosposted 3 years ago

    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.
    Period.

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Are you implying that its immature to have a viewpoint different from your own? Doesn't it shut down honest debate to say this?

    2. Daniel Bassilios profile image80
      Daniel Bassiliosposted 3 years agoin reply to 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).

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Fair enough.

    4. lawdoctorlee profile image85
      lawdoctorleeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  8. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
    wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. lawdoctorlee profile image85
      lawdoctorleeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  9. lawdoctorlee profile image85
    lawdoctorleeposted 3 years ago

    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

 
working