Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
What does love have to do with a legal marriage? Can you name a state where love is required before a marriage license is issued? You seem to be approaching this issue from an emotional standpoint, but thankfully the law is based on a bit more than that.
|
And you seem to be approaching this from an illogical point of view. Of course proof of love isn't required for a marriage license, but nice red herring. The point I was trying to make is that homosexual couples aren't treated equally because they can't marry their romantic partner. (And, no, proof of romance isn't required for a license either.
)
So what does a romantic partnership between homosexual couples have to do with a legal marriage? Is that the question?
Quote:
|
The Equal Protection clause is a poor vehicle to achieve legal homosexual marriages simply because there is no disparity in treatment. At least the issue will be finally resolved when it gets to the Supreme Court.
|
No disparity....except homosexuals cannot currently marry their romantic partners. I don't usually like to repeat myself.
Quote:
|
This topic has been debated in many previous threads on this forum, but I can't help but to wonder what would happen if you substituted "incestuous" or "polygamous" in place of the word "homosexual" in the part quoted above. If the legal definition of marriage is changed to accomodate homosexuality, I think we'll see some interesting court cases down the road.
|
Yes, it has been debated elsewhere on the forum, but your wandering wonder is just as ridiculous as ever. Making it legal for homosexuals to marry won't lead to incestuous weddings, etc., etc., and I won't be able to marry the moon, nor you your Tomagatchi.
Actually this brings up a good point: What's at stake is how American society will or will not ultimately legitimize homosexual relationships (i.e. marriage being, for many, the epitome of romantic relationships). Many people still view them as abominations in the eyes of God. Sure, but why did God make them gay then? And I find it particularly interesting that you automatically categorize homosexual relationships along with incest and polyamory via the suggestion that legalizing gay marriage will possibly open the floodgates for all kinds of marriage types. Do you think this is possible based on the act of redefining marriage? Or rejigging it? Well, it seems marriage survived the advent of divorce and annulments. And we didn't see any problems with people trying to make other changes such as allowing men to play tradsies with their wives or maybe finding a way whereby parents could divorce completely from their minor children.....or make their own parents divorce....or their neighbour's parents.... Funny, that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
First, who says it is not equal treatment and why? The US Supreme Court has yet to decide until then it is not in violation of the constitution. No matter how much you may disagree.
|
It's not equal treatment as I just outlined above. Do you think it's equal treatment to allow marriage to couples as long as they aren't gay couples?
Quote:
A vast majority of religions, (and some people are very fanatical about their religion), state it is wrong for same sex marriages. You can yell separation of Church and State... but churches/synagogues/mosques/temples will strongly suggest to their masses how to vote on certain issues. (Just as some organizations such as the NAACP, Unions, etc. will do the same.)
So, YOUR opinion that it is a "right" is opposite of say a Catholic who believes it is not a "right".
|
There were similar conflicts when it came to the question of divorce.