| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Like [[polygamy]], it replaces the pattern of "one man, one woman" which is considered a divine mandate by most modern religious people. The proposal is outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] because it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. [[Hate speech]] rules and laws are already in place which restrict criticism of same-sex unions (see also [[hate crime]]). | + | '''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed variation on the concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as opposite-sex marriage. The proposal is unacceptable to many adherents of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] because it goes against what their scriptures have labeled as sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. [[Hate speech]]. |
| | | | |
| − | Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of [[homosexual]]s with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their sinful acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples. | + | Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to obtain rights equal to those of heterosexual couples. Some opponents of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples. |
| | | | |
| | [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. <!-- There are also laws to protect children from being exploited (see [[statutory rape]], incest, [[child molesting]]). These laws enshrine the scriptural teachings of [[Christianity]] and have the support of [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]]. THESE SENTENCES ARE NON-SEQUITORS BUT SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE EDITS BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHRISTIAN IDEALS OF CONSERVAPEDIA --> | | [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. <!-- There are also laws to protect children from being exploited (see [[statutory rape]], incest, [[child molesting]]). These laws enshrine the scriptural teachings of [[Christianity]] and have the support of [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]]. THESE SENTENCES ARE NON-SEQUITORS BUT SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE EDITS BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHRISTIAN IDEALS OF CONSERVAPEDIA --> |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | | | |
| | == Background == | | == Background == |
| − | In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government. | + | In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[Iowa]], along with the [[District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government. |
| | | | |
| | In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. | | In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. |