I had to contribute to a discussion board on my online government class...
about GAY MARRIAGE.
I love this topic because I believe so much in the rights of homosexual's to marry, and receive the same benefits that are given and recognized lawfully to straight couples in this country.
I'm pasting my contribution below for those of you interested:
First, I do not believe that it is the job of any group of people or governmental office to regulate marriage. The mere idea that two individuals spousal/romantic relationships must be regulated is entirely repulsive to me. HOWEVER, I am hopeful that the law will uphold and recognize the rights of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.
The book mentions that because same-sex marriage has become recognized in some states, there is question over whether the other states must honor these unions.
This must tie into the Full faith and Credit constitutional provision (which requires states to authorize legal transactions which occurred in other states).
I am a supporter of gay marriage, because I believe that love does not discriminate against gender. No organized religion can convince me otherwise, in fact the bible supports my argument:
"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8
(cite http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208&version=NASB)
This supports my argument completely. Not because it mentions gay marriage at all, but more thoroughly, that we as fallible humans should not be responsible to attempt to hinder the private and personal sexual identity of the individual, especially to the extent to that their rights are not equal to the straight community, this is discrimination in its ugliest form.
The constitution states in article 4 that:
"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 Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
(Cite:http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm)
This fully supports the notion that same-sex marriages recognized in some states, must be recognized in other states. To do otherwise is unconstitutional. Period.
The 14th amendment states : 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 constitution could not be any more direct, homosexual couples should not be denied the protection and benefits that straight married couples receive through lawful recognition of marriage.
(cite:http://purposequest.blogspot.com/2009/05/14th-amendment-provides-for-same-sex.html)
Conservatives and certain religious groups have used the term civil union in an effort to appease relations with homosexuals in approving marriage rights, without approving the use of the biblical term marriage. Thus, civil union is a term used to deny homosexuals of a marriage recognized by God. In my opinion this is yet another foolish act of man to condemn the sins of another, and to try to deny them religious/holy recognition that is valued by many homosexuals.
Although I am sorry to say that the law must be involved in such a debate, at this point legal action must be taken to give homosexuals the right to marriage (and the use of such term) and all the benefits of marriage recognized by the law. This should be done at the Federal level, in the supreme court, so that it must be undisputedly recognized and instated by all states
I dont believe that any amendments/changes to the constitution would be necessary, under my interpretation, I believe there is more than enough support for the legality of same-sex marriage.
It would be difficult for me to think of a way to write a law regulating marriage in this country that would be likely to be supported by people of all stances on the matter. I see a possible compromise in the use of the term civil union instead of marriage. However, morally, I would refuse to make such a sacrifice.
about GAY MARRIAGE.
I love this topic because I believe so much in the rights of homosexual's to marry, and receive the same benefits that are given and recognized lawfully to straight couples in this country.
I'm pasting my contribution below for those of you interested:
First, I do not believe that it is the job of any group of people or governmental office to regulate marriage. The mere idea that two individuals spousal/romantic relationships must be regulated is entirely repulsive to me. HOWEVER, I am hopeful that the law will uphold and recognize the rights of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.
The book mentions that because same-sex marriage has become recognized in some states, there is question over whether the other states must honor these unions.
This must tie into the Full faith and Credit constitutional provision (which requires states to authorize legal transactions which occurred in other states).
I am a supporter of gay marriage, because I believe that love does not discriminate against gender. No organized religion can convince me otherwise, in fact the bible supports my argument:
"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8
(cite http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208&version=NASB)
This supports my argument completely. Not because it mentions gay marriage at all, but more thoroughly, that we as fallible humans should not be responsible to attempt to hinder the private and personal sexual identity of the individual, especially to the extent to that their rights are not equal to the straight community, this is discrimination in its ugliest form.
The constitution states in article 4 that:
"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 Effect thereof.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
(Cite:http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm)
This fully supports the notion that same-sex marriages recognized in some states, must be recognized in other states. To do otherwise is unconstitutional. Period.
The 14th amendment states : 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 constitution could not be any more direct, homosexual couples should not be denied the protection and benefits that straight married couples receive through lawful recognition of marriage.
(cite:http://purposequest.blogspot.com/2009/05/14th-amendment-provides-for-same-sex.html)
Conservatives and certain religious groups have used the term civil union in an effort to appease relations with homosexuals in approving marriage rights, without approving the use of the biblical term marriage. Thus, civil union is a term used to deny homosexuals of a marriage recognized by God. In my opinion this is yet another foolish act of man to condemn the sins of another, and to try to deny them religious/holy recognition that is valued by many homosexuals.
Although I am sorry to say that the law must be involved in such a debate, at this point legal action must be taken to give homosexuals the right to marriage (and the use of such term) and all the benefits of marriage recognized by the law. This should be done at the Federal level, in the supreme court, so that it must be undisputedly recognized and instated by all states
I dont believe that any amendments/changes to the constitution would be necessary, under my interpretation, I believe there is more than enough support for the legality of same-sex marriage.
It would be difficult for me to think of a way to write a law regulating marriage in this country that would be likely to be supported by people of all stances on the matter. I see a possible compromise in the use of the term civil union instead of marriage. However, morally, I would refuse to make such a sacrifice.
You know what you're talking about.