Does the state have the right to not allow gay marriage?
 

I believe it does not, and to do so is a violation of human rights.

Any organised religion has the right to not marry people on any grounds they chose, but a state cannot (as the British state does) morally refuse one person the right to marriage simply because they want to marry someone of the same gender.

They are denying homosexual people the same rights that heterosexual people have, to be legally married and enjoy the benefits of this. In fact, most religions will bless gay marriages, it is the government (in the UK) that forbids it.

Clearly, the government does so out of a belief that a mixed marriage is better than a same sex one, but do they have the right to enforce this morality on the people, or dictate in such a way how people conduct their private lives.

My mum is gay, I know of no sane argument why she shouldnt be allowed to get married if she wants to.

Does anyone else have any views, hopefully this wont be as controversial as views on Iraq!

As I've posted in half a dozen other related threads, the government should not be involved in marriage at all, ever.

Yes, I believe the first amendment to the constitution had something to say about this.

Re: Does the state have the right to not allow gay marriage?
 

Do you believe that a mother and daughter should be able to marry, given that they are consenting adults?

-- Alvin

Out of curiousity -- do you believe that, as government is not involved in marriage, it should not be involved in divorce either?

-- Alvin

Marriage is a religious concept, the government should have no hand in it whatsoever.

Re: Re: Does the state have the right to not allow gay marriage?
 

Interesting question. I think we would need to be very careful with this one, as there is a potential issue with abuse of power of parenthood to shape the child to want this. We have to be careful of course of inforcing our morality on other's in matters that are not properly society's concern, but I think it would be hard to be convinced the daughter would act this way through informed consent, and she may well need to be protected from acting this way.

Re: Re: Re: Does the state have the right to not allow gay marriage?
 

I agree, in terms of marriages between relatives. I asked the question because, in this case, the state is not refusing "one person the right to marriage simply because they want to marry someone of the same gender." It is more complicated than that.

Similarly, we do not consent to marriages between father and daughter; simply because they are consenting adults is not enough. Even if they are in love (assume it's at least convincing), it is still not enough -- there are other matters that complicate the affair.

To be honest, I have not heard convincing arguments either way. I just don't think it can be reduced to saying that we should not deny a person the right to marry someone else on the basis of gender alone.

-- Alvin

i think its a little rash to say the state has no place to define marriage. it is a legal relationship in many ways: shared property, right of inheritance, joint income for taxation, custody of children, etc...

Government has always been involved in marriage - starting with laws regarding the age of consent, residency, and ending with inheritance and estate taxes. Not to mention all of the laws involved in trying to get out of a stupid arrangement once you've gotten into it!

It is only a religious concept in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In most other societies, marriages are a social event, not carried out in the church/religious place, but in the home, not officiated over by priests, but by elders.

Marriage is not a religious concept. It is an agreement between 2 people, and traditionally, by their families.

Contractual obligations are separate from marriage itself, imho. Getting married does not require you to open a joint bank account with a spouse or to buy a house with them as a co-signer.

Newsflash! Marriage is a life-long contractual obligation! What's yours is hers, and it doesn't matter if you don't have a joint bank account.

Would you sign a life-long contract for any job? I wouldn't. That's why I'll never get married.

To answer the main question. The state does have the right to do it. If they didn't, they couldn't do it. I don't agree with it, but I guess that since I'll never get married I could really care less.

Technically I think that the first amendment's protection of government involvement in religion should mean that the government could not prohibit gay marriage. However, being a citizen of a state that has outlawed gay marriage I suppose I stand corrected.

But what if your girlfriend was a hot 1/2 Swedish 1/2 German girl with long blonde hair, 150+ IQ, and who liked an occasional 3some with another woman?

Worked for me :D

But of course the above was off topic.

As long as a marriage has 'rights' the states have a roll to play. As I've stated before in another thread the only time gay marriage troubles me is in the adoption of children. I'm not sure its the best thing for the child (and I'm not going to get into it again, there is no proof one way or another currently).

I still want to know why the left thinks two men should have the freedom to get married, but I shouldn't have the freedom to keep what my labor produces. But again, that’s off topic and another discussion ;)

I truly have sympathy for you if you evaluate your relationships with another human being the same as you do as a way to make money. And no, it's my firm belief that you can't love a job as much as you can love the right person.

However... its a tough inner debate for me if homosexual marriages should claim the same benefits as heterosexual ones. I'm in no means a homophobe, i'm good friends with quite a few people that are gay. But in the end, people that get married are generally given advantages through the state because it is assumed (ignoring things like non-fertile females/males) that people are going to have children. Homosexual marriages can't produce children of their own.

On the other hand... they can adopt, and be very good parents to kids that, if they weren't adopted, would grow up in poverty. There could be some middle ground reached, where homosexual marriages are always recognized by the state, but the other advantages come by the adoption of (or, attempt to) adopt. It would take really bad parents to raise a kid worse than an orphanage would.

In the end, there's no clear cut solution. Someone's going to get offended, someone's not going to get their way, and there will always be fighting on the subject. I know that in the end, thats always the situation, but on this particular topic, its split right down the middle. So why not compromise?

No need to feel sorry for me because in the end I'll guarantee that I'll be happier in the end. I think people are foolish if they don't look at marriage as a contract. It absolutely is.... And you're only kidding yourself by saying that it isn't. I don't love my job, but I'll always love my bank account more than anyone. A perfect example. A friend of mine got married over the summer. I know for a fact that he had $180,000 in the bank. 8 months later his bitch sucked him dry and he has less than a grand. And when they get a divorce, and trust me they will, she'll walk away with all of the shit that he bought with HIS $180,000. Plus, she'll get alimony, and child support if he has a child with her. He's miserable now that he's broke, and it's all his wife's fault. He's in a life-long contract that if he decides to get out of it, it'll cost him even more than if he'd just stay and be miserable. It's a no win situation. One which I'll never be part of. Almost 60% of marriages end in divorce..... That leaves you with about 40% that actually stick it out. Out of that 40% I'll bet my ass that 20% are unhappy. Basically you have a 20% chance of being in a happy marriage. Not good odds at all. It's not a game I'm willing to play.