|
Here are a few of my thoughts on this issue (keeping in mind the fact that it has been debated here before (probably many times) by people other than myself and probably you as well).
1. The government has no role in the management of consensual sexual behavior, except:
a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined).
b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.)
2. There is no justification for discriminating against a person because of who they decide to have (legal, consensual) sexual relations with.
3. It follows from 1 and 2 that gay marriage should be possible from a legal standpoint, and that "married" gays should have the same legal/common law rights as other married individuals. These rights should include (at least) inheritance, medical visitation, and tax breaks for couples.
4. The US Constitution forbids the federal government (and by extension the states) from discriminating against religious groups.
Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Amendment XIV:
"Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'm no expert on ConLaw, but from these two passages (upon which a whole lot of jurisprudence is based), you can conclude that someone could open a church and start marrying gays. I have no idea what legal standing that would give the couple, but it seems to me that the government would have to give them some form of recognition so that gays are given "equal protection."
====================
Well, that's my justification for gay marriage. To be honest, I'm no knee jerk supporter of it, but on its moral and legal merits, I can see no alternative.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
|