On Gay Marriage, Times Are Changin’

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. “And ultimately, it is completely conceivable to think that the Supreme Court will complete the circle and declare that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be abridged by states on the basis of sexual orientation.”

    ..and in doing so, would have that decision join Dred Scott and Roe as efforts to once and for all decide an issue for the nation and instead exacerbate the matter.

    Side question: Is marriage a constitutional right, such that it has to be provided by a state? Can a state decide to just get out of the marriage business rather than accept the collective wisdom of 5 Ivy-League educated jurists?

  2. Ken Rhodes says:

    “Side question: Is marriage a constitutional right, such that it has to be provided by a state? Can a state decide to just get out of the marriage business rather than accept the collective wisdom of 5 Ivy-League educated jurists?”

    Wow! What an interesting question! I love it!

    I can’t find anything in my copy of the Constitution that even remotely alludes to that obligation on the part of any government, either Federal or state. I can think of no reason why my state could not simply decide “marriage is a religious institution, and we’re not in the religion business, so we’re outta here.”

    But just think … If my state “decommissions” marriage, then how do I file my taxes? “Non-married, filing jointly?”

  3. Veracitor says:

    “…and rule that states cannot prevent citizens from getting married on the basis of sexual orientation.”

    No State does that now. Most States grant marriages licenses only to opposite-sex couples, some may still require STD tests (I’m not sure), but none of the States asks any questions about sexual orientation.

  4. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Addressing the oft-posed question of civil marriage as a government sanction, of course government isn’t constitutionally required to provde this service. But if government withdraws from marriage licensing, something pragmatic civilized governments have been involved in since at least the Enlightenment, how would people resolve issues arising from matters like child custody and support, on parental death or incapacitation or otherwise; marital splits and resulting contests over property settlements; death and estate distributions in the absence of a legally valid will; and the like? On those freighted subjects, private contracts and enterprise leave many gaps, inefficiencies, and inequities. State abandonment of the field temptingly avoids facing the challenges posed by political disagreement about the meaning of marriage, but it’s a totally impractical idea.

  5. Ryan says:

    “No State does that now. Most States grant marriages licenses only to opposite-sex couples, some may still require STD tests (I’m not sure), but none of the States asks any questions about sexual orientation.”

    That argument is a red herring. They are implicitly discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, regardless of whether they ask about it. That’s like saying, there was no one ASKING about the color of your skin at the water fountains, they just had one water fountain for whites and one water fountain for blacks.

    If they are preventing you from equal rights on the manifest result of sexual orientation, then they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

  6. zamys says:

    why cant people just understand homosexuals should be able to have every right a non-homosexual has how would u feel if u thought the gays shouldn’t have rights then what would u do if your daughter was a lesbian then how would you feel knowing your daughter has no benefits just because she is a lesbian or bi-sexual just think people