87
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 313:
Line 313: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Same-sex marriage (view source)
Revision as of 22:56, September 21, 2011
, 22:56, September 21, 2011no edit summary
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
==It's all about separation of church and state!==
(or, why supporting gay marriage is a conservative position)
'''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."'''
This is pretty plain and simple, it is unconstitutional to legislate from the basis of scripture or religious dogma. The fact of the matter is that marriage, as a legal construct, is a contract that grants certain special privileges and legal entitlements to the parties involved. Married couples in the United States, with or without children, enjoy benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, joint income tax filing, shared parental rights of natural or adopted children, next-of-kin status in the event of medical emergencies, and many other rights. These things are provided because it assumed that, once married, a couple becomes a family unit.
Denying these rights to two people who love each other, and are in a committed relationship, simply on the basis of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual creates an unnecessary legal distinction between two classes of people (more laws = bigger government). If two gay men spend their lives together, effectively as a family unit, it is ethically reprehensible that they cannot apply for the same legal protections as a straight couple with a similar arrangement.
Marriage is not specifically intended for couples intent on raising children. People who are sterile can still get married. Arguing that marriage is an institution for raising children then calls into question the validity of all of every marriage that has failed to produce children. The only argument against allowing two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, to legally marry is derived from religious tradition. While this religious tradition should be respected, it is not legal (per the first amendment to the US constitution) to legislate using religious tradition as a precedent.
Is that to say that churches opposed to gay marriages should be forced to perform them? No, because that is also unconstitutional. The church (or temple, or synagogue, or mosque), is free to decide it's own religious definition of marriage. However, the state definition of marriage must, by constitutional imperative, be defined in secular terms. To define that the parties involved be "one man and one woman", without secular justification or precedent, is to unnecessarily extend governmental regulation into citizens' private lives.
Opposing the unmitigated expansion of government regulation is one of the core values that defines the conservative movement; so is the protection of the constitution. Supporting gay marriage both promulgates minimal legislation and observes the letter of the first amendment to the constitution. Therefore, support of gay marriage should, in fact, be a conservative position. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)