Platform Item 10: Homosexual Marriage
We regard the traditional definition of marriage, the union of a man and a woman, as the core unit within the American culture. We oppose any aberration to the definition of marriage.
Affirmative Argument
In order for any government to exist it must adhere to a common dictionary. Not only must words mean something but they must continue to mean the same things. The traditional definition of marriage is as follows:
Marriage \ n 1 a: the state of being married. b: the mutual relation of husband and wife : wedlock c: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
Where it is true that this word has been morphed within recent dictionaries to include relationships between two partners of the same sex it is also true that at the time of the writing of our Constitution no thought was ever given to a marriage including a contract between two members of the same sex. There is one defined method for modifying our Constitution and the process cannot be controlled by Merriam-Webster. When a concern arises as to the definition of a word what must be considered of greatest import is the definition at the time of drafting the original document. In the case of gay marriage, the very combination of words is an oxymoron to the traditional definition.
States are free to determine for themselves the rules of legal contracts. But there will be a problem if we use different dictionaries. The federal government may not accept some definition and there is considerable concern with regard to other states being placed in the position by one state due to the faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effects thereof. Section 2: The Citizens of each State be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Thus we have a problem when the states do not agree with a definition that would include the practice of homosexuals forming a marriage contract in one state when such contracts are not valid in another. The reason is that the couple might then want their contract recognized in that other state. There would also be a problem if the federal government were to permit two cohabiting homosexuals to file a joint tax return in one state but not in another. This would then violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution.
It should be clear that no one state should be permitted to define marriage or any other word differently than previously accepted or that single state could trample the rights of every other state. Could a state allow as a marriage a contract between a man and multiple women, a woman and her cat or a six year old girl and a pedophile? These concerns are passed off by some as extreme and without merit. They say this would never happen. However others would argue that any modification to the definition of marriage is already extreme and these kinds of circumstances could easily happen if the traditional definition is not maintained.
Marriage is not a civil right. If a right is to be understood as something that is God given, that a citizen possesses without the sacrifice of any other citizen, then marriage cannot be considered a right. Legal wedlock is a social contract entered into by two individuals of opposite sex that is licensed by the state and the rules for qualifying to marry differ between states. Blood tests, age limitations, a license, attestation that neither partner is already a partner to a similar contract and other requirements are imposed at the discretion of each state legislature. But these are questions of process, not definition.
Once married, privileges accrue to both spouses that they did not have when they were single. For one state to provide these privileges that might extend to the federal level or to other states that exceed the rights of the citizens of the other states is something that may only be resolved by a Constitutional Amendment. If this is ultimately the only way to resolve the matter we will vote to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Hopefully all that will be required by our courts is that it be recognized that any state is free to endorse such contracts but that because their definition of marriage does not conform to the traditional definition of marriage no other state nor the federal government shall be required to accept that social contract in their jurisdictions.
Categories: Platform
Tags: Homosexual Marriage Homosexuals
Exceptional post! I've bookmarked your website as well due to the fact I discovered it is seriously educational and I enjoyed reading your posts.
Reply to this
Thank you so much.
Reply to this
This is so cool..thanks so much for the info. Love it!
Reply to this
Unfortunately, many people who are involved in politics bring their religion to the political arena. The people who escaped Europe to found America were actually escaping religious persecution in their home lands. They came to America and set up in some ways a religious government here too, but they were clear to at least try to limit the interactions between church and state. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of very well-educated people who simply do not believe in the presence of any "gods". In governing a country, it is not necessary to use any religion or religious arguments to perform proper and ethical and moral governance. To be an atheist is NOT to be a "satanist".
When any party or political movement uses "god" in any way, or professes to be carrying out the "will of god" in any way, they weaken the draw for their movement which weakens their power. For once and for all I would like to see a political movement that professes morals and family values WITHOUT them feeling like they have to bring any "god" into the situation. To do so labels the group and movement as "far right" and this again weakens any credibility of the group... Let's do this right - Let's get religion out of government, and the mention of "god" out of any platform. Marriage is a "religious" thing, at least historically. It is a choice between two parties to enter into a private agreement amongst themselves. The problem is that government has come into this private/religious agreement, in the form of benefits to surviving spouses, who should be allowed to adopt, etc. Government should not even be concerned in any way as to which two (or more, for that matter) people decide to join into such a union. Taxation should not be predicated on such a status either. Once you take government out of peoples' private lives and decisions, then the choice of who you marry is a simple private one. Younger people have seen this, and along with the legalization of marijuana, they believe in huge numbers, in the right of any person to "marry" the one they choose. Let's get these types of divisive things out of the Tea party platform so that we are not mislabeled, we can grow our numbers, and be a powerful force for what is truly needed here in America - government OUT of our private lives, not INTO, it.
Reply to this
Doctor,
I am sure that you are aware that any moral code is a construct of religion. Even those who profess to be moral or have a moral code without being religious must admit that their moral code has been learned and is a concept that was first pronounced by the religious community. The majority of our laws are predicated upon Judeo-Christian ethics and contrary to past statements by President Obama, the United States is most certainly a Christian nation. It was founded as a Christian nation and certainly cannot and should not be declared otherwise by simple minority objection.
You appear to have a fervor for being free from religion yet our Constitution does not protect that right. You have the freedom to worship or not to worship and you live as I with the assurance that the federal government may not elect to pronounce a state religion. At the same time, those who are religious have this same right, to be able to worship as they please free from anyone, including yourself, attempting to silence them or disenfranchise them because they elect to practice their faith and extend their faith all the way into the voting booth.
In many ways you are likely more religious than many who profess to be Christians. What you regard as a logical weakness others regard as a logical strength to know that they are fundamentally doing God's work no matter the issue.
I have no desire to get religion out of government and to make this statement certainly does not make me right wing or radical. It merely means I disagree with your assessment as an atheist. For more than two centuries the family has been regarded as the primary core unit of our society. Although marriage is a "religious thing" as far as what a church might deem as proper cohabitation or sanctioned relationships for the purpose of procreation and assembling a family unit, you are free to believe otherwise and homosexuals are free to believe otherwise as well. When problems come into play is when the state licenses a relationship for the purpose of contracting and laws of ownership and liability, child custody, etc.. If a religious person who is as much a citizen as you believes a relationship to be contrary to the best interests of the society because in their mind it destroys the core family unit, they have both the right and the obligation to stand against the state sanctioning that relationship and all the unintended consequences such recognition might bring.
Reply to this
I have to take serious exception to this. Moral constructs are not from god, I do not acknowledge such a foolish statement and religious people need to drop this line of thinking. Without going into all the things the bible espouses on morality (like if you rape a woman, pay her father 50 silver pieces and marry here or if a woman does not scream when she is being raped, kill her...), I will just ask: HAVE YOU READ THE BIBLE? It is one of the most morally inept pieces of superstition ever found anywhere.
Morality EVOLVED just like everything else did. And, morality has to do with an individual's own self-interst, not the greater interest of a society as a whole. I don't kill because I don't want to be killed. I don't take from you because I don't want to be taken from. If I were gay, however, and simply loved members of my own gender, that cannot under any stretch of the imagination be considered "immoral" unless you garner your "morality" from superstition which just arbitrarily makes things immoral that are otherwise innocuous (Ayn Rand said governments would do this too and she was correct).
Your argument about being disenfranchised is specious. Christians love to proclaim that they are being repressed. Out constitution does grant me the right to be free of religion being imposed on me.
Marriage is not a "religions thing". For some people it is religious and for others it is contractual. That is why we have state (and not church) issued marriage licenses. Let others live as they want and you go study your myths. When this happens, I'll come back to the republican party. Until then, watch your political fortunes ebb and flow as people get sick of hearing your party's moralizing and advancement of ignorance. How 'bout we embrace freedom instead of provably false man-gods and superstition?
Reply to this
Excuse me. Did I say our mores were a revelation from God or did I say they were the construct of religion? To call such a statement foolish is to make a fool of yourself. I have no intent on getting into a religious discussion with you because I am unqualified. However, I think it a truism to state that religion was the teacher in the early centuries that brought us common law.
Morality evolved as everything else did? You are now sounding even more "foolish". How did it evolve? From what? Teachings indicate that its evolution was from Judaism and then Christianity. Yes, under these circumstances I can accept your theory of evolution. But, I don't believe this was your intention, was it? Do you think morality suddenly arrived by a young lady telling her caveman suitor with the club that she should be respected? Whether you are religious or not the evidence is overwhelming that it was the church that brought the teachings of morality to Europe and to this country as well.
Marriage is both religious and contractual. The contract is important for the reasons I stated in the original posting and the marriage is important to those of faith who wish to be seen as united with a purpose under God. But even the contractual relationship has as its core the recognition of one woman and one man.
No one cares whether you or anyone else is religious or not but your disrespectful rants that call religious stories myths and superstition are sophomoric. The only true reality is not what you provide because you don't know and can't prove anything more than what I or some devout Christian or Jew can provide. No one will know until their time to either go meet God or as you predict, reduce to dust. So please, don't bore us with your truths that are self evident only to you and those of like mind. You have no more basis for your view of the world than anyone else. Those who see the world and worship their God as a result of faith are the ones who gave us all our concepts of right and wrong and it is their mores that gave us a Constitution and a nation.
Reply to this
Patriot, every time I engage you I find I have a hard time following your logic. You jump to the conclusion that the "morality" that is taught by your church is moral by any objective definition. Certainly, some of it is. I do not believe that "thou shalt not murder" has anything to do with laws against murder in this country though. Likewise I don't find any law in this country that makes it illegal for an individual to desire his neighbor's wife, blaspheme god nor laws that compel anyone to stone children or women for certain acts of indiscretion. The idea that our "moral code" came from the bible (or any other religion) is not supported by what is generally in our laws. Perhaps you can point out which of our laws (or moral codes as you say), other than marriage laws, are based on biblical "morality"?
Morality evolved through natural selection like everything else did. Laws themselves are not always based on any objective definition of morality (sometimes they are quite arbitrary). As an aside, when you call evolution a "theory", you demonstrate your disdain for it. Please note that gravity is a theory too and we have a great deal of empirical evidence for evolution. We have so much evidence for it that to deny it is absurd (not saying that you are, but it seems like you're leaning that way). Let's take murder again. Repulsion to murder did evolved because there is a benefit to me to see members of my species survive and to also not be worried that a bunch of people want to retaliate against me for knocking off people they love. We are a social animal and need each other and reproduction ensures our success as a species. It does us no good to reduce our gene pool. Note that altruism and many different acts of kindness exist throughout the animal kingdom. I doubt any of them have read the bible or gone to church.
Two of the constructs you speak about that are defined as immoral in the bible are adultery (sort of - in the bible it's immoral for a married woman to sleep around but for married men... not so much) and homosexuality. Both of these traits evolved because they are helpful to the individual or the group the individual belongs to (yes, homosexuality is shown to be a strategy for survival and groups with homosexual members wind up with more off-spring). No amount of outcry is going to stop either of them (and to homosexuals, I'm not equating your sexual selection to adultery). Both of them do in fact exist throughout the animal kingdom and are used in various ways.
Religious stories are myths and superstitions. You think Odysseus really went down to hell for three days or fought a cyclops? What makes any other religion less myth based than some other religion? Nonetheless, if you see your marriage as an equal yoke thing, great. What gives you the right to impose your will on others who don't see it that way? Or on others who do see it that way but happen to be gay? How does their union either pick your pocket or break your leg?
Reply to this
No, I have never talked of the morality as taught by my church. I have only spoken of the morality as taught by the churches through the ages. Not one specific church but all churches recognized by my statements as 'the church'. The mores of 'the church' were eventually embedded in common law. As such, yes, laws against murder are a result of the Judeo-Christian ethics that say thou shalt not murder. At its origin our nation's laws were largely based upon common law hence, Judeo-Christian ethics. You can choose not to believe this but you would be wrong.
Natural selection you say? Natural selection by a people influenced by their church perhaps.
How on earth do I demonstrate my disdain for the theory of evolution by calling it a theory? This is what it is. It is unproven. It was a theory put forward by Charles Darwin. Where in the following do you suggest that gravity is merely a theory? I encourage you to take a course in physics. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
Now, contrast this to the following Wikipedia discussion of Charles Darwin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
You will note that on the second line there is reference to evolution being a theory. This is not to denigrate it. It is merely to recognize that there exists no proof of the theory or it would be a scientific law.
Once again, I am not qualified to discuss religion and as such I will maintain my comments on religion to how it has effected history, its impact on our nation's laws and the principles embedded in the 1st Amendment. I will not discuss Biblical verse.
Reply to this
Thank you. I agree. I've been saying this for awhile now. It is not Conservative for the government to intervene so heavily in the practice of marriage, which is in fact, private, and often faith-based. It is a mistake to let the doctrine of New Zionism, actually a progressive reform movement sharing some Republican values, but mostly concerned with faith-based views on marriage and abortion (which there are reasonable humanist problems with), dominate the political conversation of the right wing. The right wing should distill into a number of parties that more correctly express its divisions (New Zionists, Libertarians, Republicans, Tea Parties, and very retro Conservatives).
I believe the Tea Party should be secular, in the spirit of separation of Church and State.
That said, secular marriages should no longer be granted to any citizens, gay or straight, because marriage is a private matter, and the churches can decide who to marry.
All members of the democracy can be satisfied by supply meeting demand with fundamental and liberal churches. No one, neither left nor right should be bringing their interpretations of what marriage ought to be to bear in a legislative manner. This institutionalizes something that is private, and those who lose the idea battle (liberal or conservative) will perceive a state endorsement of one group over another. We can't be stirring these fires.
King Solomon was confronted with two women who both claimed to own a baby. He saw neither would bend, so he said, "Cut the kid in half." The woman who cared about the baby (i.e. the mother) said, "Let her have it!" If either side cares about marriage, they will let go of its leg and allow the other side to claim it--in the private sphere. That way, they both retain it, and the culture war is half over.
Also, marriage comprises a bundle of rights given to citizens because the citizens are producing or raising children as a couple, as a favor to the state. Not more privileges who acquire just because you found the love or your life. (Poor singles, huh?)
So state benefits that pertain to rearing children should be granted civilly without marriage, but according to intent to rear. They should be granted equally to straights, gays, singles (who are currently discriminated against in this area) and even polygamous units that have passed inspection by a child welfare agency.
Other joint contract rights should be given to any couple, including sisters, who apply for them. Why? We misunderstand what a legal couple IS.
A couple is not a sexual unit.
It is two people who decide they wish to share certain assets. Thus, rights that relate to citizens designating inheritance and with whom they share joint property should be recognized by the government, as citizens choose a legal (not necessarily sexual) partner.
If America would quit the culture war and observe some common sense, we'd be in better shape.
Reply to this
the problem is when people wish to bring religion into government, which yo clearly do. we need to get religion out of government. We have come too far to live in the dark ages. Morals came from men who then invented religion. They have no more validity than that and the values they teaach us, which are real. They did not come from some "god". Humans dictate morals, and to so so yo do not need to be "religious". These types of platforms simply alienate.
Reply to this
Doctor,
Why on earth would you think that I want to bring religion into government? I merely want to protect the freedom of those who regard religion as a very big part of their lives and their ability to exercise their religion from church and home all the way to the voting booth. This does not "bring religion into the government, it merely recognizes that it has always been there."
I am not qualified to get into a theological discussion with you. It is obvious that your religion of atheism is important to you and I am not interested in that kind of a debate, not from either side.
The Patriot
Reply to this
Religion has not always been there. The closest you can get to that is 'spirituality'. The mention of 'god', 'the creator' or a 'supreme being' is an abstract part of nearly every religion and is the closest you can get to a religion when codifying spirituality without actually specifying it. Many early immigrants had escaped a state religion and weren't interested in having anything codified from a specific religion which is why there are no other specific references.
Since you are not qualified to talk theology, then you should leave anything relating to it out of the discussion. Your rights to practice what you want end at the beginning of my nose and in a functioning democracy we must compromise and suffer the inconveniences no matter how distasteful they may be. Whether it is same-sex marriage, miniskirts and hot pants, or people marching with signs depicting aborted fetuses, or 'God hates fags' and kills US soldiers as retribution, or rubber testicles hanging off the back of trucks, there will be things you are exposed to that you don't like.
I agreed with others here that government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is a religious institution. States should not be sanctioning unions. They should be recognizing contracts between persons and no more. If you want a religious ceremony, go for it. If you want a civil union, go to your local government and sign the contract. You should be able to get one without the other irrespective of the sex of then persons involved. If you get married, but don't have a contract in writing, you would be trying to enforce a verbal contract. A few court decisions will and we'll have some standing on how that works out. Most folks will just get married and sign the civil union contract and, well, problem solved.
I fail to understand why self-proclaimed heterosexuals even care about same sex marriage. I fail to understand this claim of it as a core unit. Government, in the past, has said no to bigamy, polygamy, interracial marriage, dictated the authority of wives, and so on. I thought the Tea Party was all about 'getting the government out of our live'. But I guess it's about 'getting the government out of our lives unless I disapprove of what you do'.
Here's a simple solution, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If you want to protect same-sex marriage, outlaw divorce. I agree with some of your stuff here, disagree with most, but this is hugely hypocritical.
Reply to this
I am not qualified to discuss the details of theology, no. This doesn't mean I don't know anything about European or American history. It was not "spirituality" that created the huge influence of the churches in Europe and it was not spirituality that caused people to originally flee to this country 500 years ago. They came for religious freedom and when they created a nation they ensured that they would be able to continue worshipping as they saw fit in their individual states because those that inhabited Virginia were of different religious makeup than those in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, etc.
I have not once implied that anything I believe you must believe too. I also have never indicated that I should in any way be protected from the sight of things I might not like. I have only stated that the mores of a nation are at the heart of its culture and at the core of the culture is also the family unit. I argue that same-sex marriages should not be permitted and if necessary they should be prohibited by Constitutional Amendment. I see such unions as hurtful to the culture and yes, that is my opinion. I write the blog and therefore I give my opinion.
Government cannot get out of the marriage business altogether because laws must determine issues such as child custody, contract obligations, estate law, trusts, responsibilities for the liabilities of one another, powers of attorney in some instances, etc. These are all things that same sex couples can control by contract. There is no necessity for the majority of Americans to have to endorse homosexual couples and accept their union as a marriage when such a union defies their concept of morality. Marriage has always been considered the union of one man with one woman. Therefore the justification for changing this must be legislated, not determined by judges in black robes. If necessary and it is looking like it may be necessary, I do favor a Constitutional Amendment to put this issue to rest.
The Constitution also has a full faith and credit clause that requires states to accept the contractual relationships between people if made in another state. When one state decides to accept a homosexual union it is required that other states recognize it and if those other states don't wish to recognize that union a Constitutional crisis emerges. My solution is number 28.
I fail to understand why any self-proclaimed homosexuals need my sanction for their relationship. Two men or two women can contract to own property together. They can provide each other power of attorney. They are able to adopt in many if not all states. What is the purpose of wanting to be recognized as husband and wife unless it is to stick it in the eye of those who do not understand or approve of their lifestyle? If the door were to be opened to changing the definition of what constitutes a marriage then what is to prevent a man from having multiple wives, a man and his horse or a woman and her dog? What is to prevent some adult from taking a child as their mate? No, I prefer to maintain the definition that has done society well for 220+ years and protect the society from I regard as an encroachment on the family unit.
We in the Tea Party do want the government out of our lives and this is the reason for my desire to amend the Constitution. I do not want a group of judges that are not elected by the people to be able to effect our culture in this way. An Amendment would be in response to an activist court that is denying majority rights in favor of vocal minorities and the ridiculous notions of the radical left.
Reply to this
Yes! I agree with the previous posts. Keep religion out of politics! The Tea Party is a chance for us to do this right. If homosexual marriage and abortion were left out of the Tea Party platform, the support for this movement would be overwhelming from so many independents. Get these two issues off the platform!
Reply to this
Totally agree with you. This is the one (1) reason I am not a republican (I am a libertarian in the Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson sense). Once republicans learn to live in the 21st century and stop denying scientific theories for which there is a great deal of proof (you know, like the theory of gravity and theory of Pythagoras and the theory of evolution), then I'll be a republican again. Until then, people will get sick of socialist dems and vote them out in favor of moralizing republicans to later get sick of moralizing republicans to vote them out in favor of socialist dems.
Reply to this
You equate the theory of evolution with the "theory" of gravity? The actual terminology is a "law" of gravity, not a theory. The Pythagorean Theorem can be proven mathematically. Do you have examples of any situation where the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle does not equal the square root of the sum of the two legs squared? These are not comparable to the theory of evolution. There are unexplained holes in the theory of evolution that are not explained. For example, there is no archaeological evidence of any station of pre-human that was post-ape and if man evolved from the ape, why are there still apes? If man and ape developed from some creature that preceded the ape, where is the evidence of this? I don't have the answers to these questions but neither to you and as long as there are questions that cannot be answered the theory of evolution is only a guess of our beginning. It is not science.
Reply to this
Ever hear of Gravitational Theory? The Pythagorean Theorem cannot be proven mathematically. It can only be observed mathematically. Evolution works under the same constraints. Just as we predict (a*a) + (b*b) = c*c and it works every time, we predict that we'll find an animal at some strata of the earth's crust always occurring between two species that we already know are related and that it will have characteristics that match what we see in the two older and younger fossils we are looking at and that it will have genetic and physical differences that are only slight from either of those two species and that it will have less variance to the older or younger species than the older and younger have between each other... and then we find it! Over and over and over again we find this evidence. These are called "transitional species" in religious lexicon. We have many of them and could not make these kinds of predictions and find these kinds of results if creationism were true nor if the theory of evolution were "nothing more than a theory" in the pejorative sense in which you use the word. If you want to disprove evolution, simply find a fossil of any mammal of your choosing occurring anywhere before or along side with the dinosaur of your choosing. Just show a chaotically mixed strata and you win!
We have new strains of micro-organisms in our lifetimes, vaccines and a fascinating map of life going back to many common ancestors. If the aims of religion had been carried out, we (might) still have the new strains of micro-organisms (if we were not extinct by now) but none of the knowledge or life-saving benefits that we've gained through understanding evolution. It was religion that burned libraries, made it illegal to read and ushered in the dark ages which cost us dearly in terms of progress. Now religious people do the same thing with the spreading of ignorance on objectively evident scientific truths.
If you really want answers to your questions, they are there. Just head over to Google. Start researching things like Whale evolution. Read the Christian rebuttals. See the Wiki entry (for which there is no Christian rebuttal). Figure out what is more reasonable to believe. If you sincerely take on learning and you have the ability to be objective, you will come to understand why the scientific community is so frustrated with having to try to explain why the theory of evolution is not only of utmost importance to our future but is founded, true and has a trove of empirical evidence.
Reply to this
When you find that animal, you be sure to let us know. Darwin does not work every time. This is the problem with considering it a law. You cannot prove it. You cannot observe it. You are correct that the Pythagorean Theorem is not a law but it is accepted theory because of evidence as you say that the result is always the same. This is why it is elevated to the status of theorem, a little better than theory.
the·o·rem
noun \ˈthē-ə-rəm, ˈthir-əm\
Definition of THEOREM
1
: a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions
2
: an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : proposition <the theorem that the best defense is offense>
I am not using the concept of theory as a pejorative. Only as a fact. Just as you state, there are many theories that we accept as probably factual. Darwin is accepted by many as such but as I have already stated and at the risk of being redundant, we can't prove it.
I have no desire to prove or disprove Darwin's Theory because I don't care. I am arguing the Constitution not Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The entire point is that we don't know. I am satisfied that I don't know. I have nothing to prove. Some have faith that God created man in his image. You have faith that you are a descendant of some precursor set of cells, organisms etc. It doesn't really matter. Those who have faith in God should be permitted to practice their religion and observe their faith and you should be able to practice yours without either of you denying you the opportunity to worship as you please, they in their Christian or Jewish religious beliefs and you in your Atheistic religious beliefs. Just do not deny them the opportunity to influence their government and don't deny them their ability to worship as they please. They don't deny that to you.
Reply to this
This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen. This is not the T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Party, this is a fascist agenda statement.
Common sense CLEARLY establishes that what goes on between consenting adults is of no consequence to anyone else so long it does not impinge on any individual's liberty.
I do not want to know what goes on in any household other than my own.
Spending ANY amount of government time and money on such nonsense is wasteful and not a single penny of my tax dollars should be involved.
Ridiculous.
Reply to this
I know of no one who would deprive a homosexual the right to cohabitate or to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. We are discussing the recognition of such a union as a marriage. Keep with the subject.
Reply to this
"I am the love that dare not speak its name." ~ Lord Alfred Douglas,
From the poem Two Loves, December 1894.
To me this poem speaks a lot about man kind. We Must ask ourselves why is it that love should ever be hidden? Isn't love something to be celebrated, to be honored in the highest regard? Love is the very founding of life as we know it. Without Love we have no families and with no families we have no society.
How many people in this room love someone that they wish to marry, or think they may in the future wish to marry and have a family?
Now how would you feel if i said to you " you cant marry and your family isn't a real family and is of less value than other more 'traditional' families". That is basically what America says to millions of gay Americans everyday.
Our nation was founded on the very principals of equality and justice for all as written in the Deceleration of Independence (July 4th 1776),
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Today I intend to give you a strictly secular argument as to why the federal government not only should, but also why it has a vested interest in legislating marriage equality. The reason i give you this secular argument is because the United States of America is a secular nation being defined as a country that does not have a sanctioned religion of any sort. It is enshrined in our very founding the bed rock of our nation that church and state should always be separate, there for any religious argument is null and void in a court of law, under the 1st amendment which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
To restrict the legal definition of marriage to just one man one women as it is now under DOMA aka The Defines of Marriage Act, violates this first amendment by “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Because many religious philosophies tell their followers that they are to fallow the rules of nature, since homosexuals have natural attractions to the same sex they are to pair up with another of that sex.
The opposition to marriage equality often claims that homosexuality is not natural and a persons sexuality is optional. But when looked into, we find that there has never been a proven case of a person changing there sexual orientation, and the many organizations that claim success in these areas have never presented scientific evidence nor do they fallow up on there “patient” to see if they have continued to abstain from same sex intercourse. We also must realize that
Reply to this
sexual orientation, and the many organizations that claim success in these areas have never presented scientific evidence nor do they fallow up on there “patient” to see if they have continued to abstain from same sex intercourse. We also must realize that sexual orientation is defined as an attraction either to the opposite or same sex depending on homosexuality or heterosexuality. Meaning that yes while one chooses who they have intercourse with they don’t necessarily chose who they are attracted to.
It is also important to point out that every major medical associations disagrees with these groups stating that they believe homosexuality is natural, normal, change is unlikely to occur, and attempting to do so can be detrimental to the individual. To be more specific according to the American Psychological Association official web site.
"Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”
They also state in regards to “ conversion therapy” (the therapy that supposed to change ones sexual orientation)
"The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients."
On the bases of equality and equal protections under the law we have the 14th amendment which clearly states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”-The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution There for if the government is to recognize marriage between a man and a women then under the 14th amendment it must also recognize a same sex marriage and give said marriages the exact same benefits, rights and responsibility’s. To not do so would be a violation of the 14th amendment.
Opposition to marriage equality claims that they simply do not want to “change the definition of marriage”, and that they are okay with domestic partnerships or civil unions. Which on its face sounds fair and reasonable. But when we examined this argument is very simply refuted. First the definition of marriage is an ever changing definition. Through time marriage has been defined in many different ways, including everything from polygamy to same sex marriage to “traditional marriage”.Second and more importantly in the supreme court case of Brown V. The Bored of Education May 17, 1954 it was found the
Reply to this
the separate but equal is not equal under the law and segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment.( this information was obtained by trinity collage's official web site.)
According to the Supreme Court in Loving V. Virginia 1967 marriage is considered one of the basic rights of man, to prohibit a group from practicing marriage is to violate that groups basic human rights. To be exact the court justices ruled that
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
and
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
(this information was obtained by Cornell University of law's official web site.)
“Family values” and “save the children” is something we hear for almost every controversial issue.
But what kind of family values are we supporting if we're allowing discrimination and in some cases even teaching our kids that discrimination is okay? What kind of values is it that is okay with a 50% divorce rate?
Opponents to marriage equality often claim that legislating marriage equality will lead to a lower marriage rate, a higher divorce rate, and more children being born and raised out of wedlock.
These claims have all been proven to be simply untrue. In the State of Massachusetts marriage equality has been the rule of the land since 2004, almost over 6 years. Their divorce rates has been in a decline for the past twenty years and has only continued you to decline since marriage equality was enacted. Which is saying something because Massachusetts has had the lowest divorce rate in the nation since 1990. Marriage rates have increased by approximately 15%, and its non-marital birth rate has remained well below the national average.
Allowing marriage equality has benefited the state of Massachusetts by creating a more stable family unit for homosexual couples and there children. It has also increased in acceptance of homosexuals and their families.
( this information was obtained from a court briefing filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by MARTHA COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL for the state of Massachusetts in the appeal of the proposition 8 verdict in California)
So as you can see from the information I have provided you with denying same sex couples and there families marriage equality is a violation of not only their constitutional rights but their basic civil rights as part of man kind. I'd like to leave you with a quote from Walt Whitman who said,
“Of equality - As if it harmed me, giving others the same chances and rights as myself - As if it were not indispensable to my own rights that others possess the same.”
Reply to this
"Not only must words mean something but they must continue to mean the same things. "
So your argument essentially boils down to
"but we don't want to change the dictionary". Definitions change, this is not a new development get over yourselves.
Reply to this
We certainly do not want to change the Constitution by a change in the dictionary over which citizens have no control.
Reply to this
I agree with Holly (11/5/2010). If the Tea Party would remove the overtly religious planks from the platform, I could support it. But this obvious discrimination for the sake of their own mental anguish is uncalled for.
It is either a right or it isn't. If you consider it a right, then you can't deny it based on your phobias.
Listen to what you tell your own children: grow up.
Reply to this
Don't confuse the disagreement with the concept of homosexual marriage as purely ground in religion. But regardless of that, why should anyone with deep religious conviction remove themselves from any political argument for the sake of getting along with someone without those convictions? Would such a person be true to themselves if they did not heed their convictions and act upon them?
No, homosexual marriage is not a right, neither is traditional marriage. Both are founded in law and there is nothing phobic about it. I can't begin to understand why it is that people who disagree with something must suddenly be labeled phobic because they disagree. Why is that? I personally believe that the family is the basic cell of society and the health of the family is endangered when we begin to redefine what we call marriage. Whether you regard it as God's law or natural law two men or two women as mates is unnatural and unhealthy to the family structure. They cannot procreate. They cannot build a family. That is my opinion. It is what I told my children and it is what I also tell my grandchildren.
Reply to this
Yes, you are correct and I apologize for using the phobia language. We are all permitted to have our opinions and I should not disparage yours. I can see that you have considered this question closely and your beliefs are founded on a consistent world view.
However, I disagree with your world view and your stance on this subject. I personally believe that loving couples in committed relationships providing stable family structure is in the best interest for our society. The gender of these couples is not germane, in my opinion. We should encourage this stability by bestowing the same rights across the board.
Reply to this
Thank you for your apology.
My only additional point to your opinion is that citizens neither directly nor indirectly through the state bestow rights to individuals. Rights are intrinsic, they are recognized in our founding documents to have been provided to all men (and women) by our Creator. Legislation provides rules by which we govern and must be consistent with our culture. To this end I note that where the citizens have spoken they have in almost all instances indicated support for the contract of marriage to be between one man and one woman and that alone.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. For the time being the country supports my world view more than yours and I am personally grateful for that. It is my hope that this will not change in either my lifetime or the lifetime of my grandchildren.
Reply to this
This platform idea is in direct conflict with Platform #21: Affirmative Action, where it was stated: "The Congress shall create no law that demonstrates a preference for one group of citizens over another."
Defining marriage as anything other than two individuals entering into a "marriage contract" will exclude ONE group of citizens so that ANOTHER exclusively retains the preference. As such, it violates your platform.
Reply to this
To the contrary. For the Congress to redefine marriage from the traditional definition and include a recognition of unions between homosexuals would be a law that demonstrates a preference for one group of citizens over another. Words mean things. The traditional definition of marriage is one man, one woman. For the Congress to define marriage to include a homosexual couple would be to the exclusion of one man : multiple women; one woman : multiple men; etc.
Reply to this