Ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional

I work with 19-22 year old males and, at least at that age their image of heterosexual male far outwieghts anything else.

The "new deal" would require the same commitment. It would require two people willing to get married. I hardly see where this would open up marriage to any more fraus then it currently sees.

 

"Sanctity of marriage" is a moral issue. Is marriage all that sanctified now? With a 50% divorce rate? Marriage is currently a legally binding contract in the eyes of the government, which grants certain benefits to the two involved in the contract. It has nothing to do with being sanctified.

If a certain number of heterosexaul marriages are frauds then one would figure that the same percentage of gay marriages would be frauds. Is that enough of a reason to deny the ones that would be legal and beneficial?

And again, why does it matter? If two friends of any sex, both paying taxes, both paying insurance and social security, wish to share those benefits, why shouldn't they?

 

As Deb says, marriage is a legal contract imposing duties on each partner to support the other.

But the analysis doesn't end there. Marriage isn't an entirely "private law" concern, like buying a house or hiring a worker. The State has an interest in regulating and preserving marriage, both to foster the upbringing of future citizens and to prevent physical, emotional and financial abuse of one party by the other.

Now, my examples also carry significant government interest and involvement, but they remain essentialy private concerns whereas marriage is not only subject to licensing and public disclosure, but must actually be celebrated before witnesses and dissolved before the Courts! Why? Because at every level, society has an interest in the institution itself.

I haven't worked out my own ideas about same sex marriage, yet. (My many gay and lesbian friends know me well enough to forgive my deliberation, I hope!) Instinctively, though, I think the state probably does have the power to restrict the institution to "one man and one woman" UNLESS there is clear and convincing evidence that sexual orientation is an immutable, involuntary charactoristic of an identifiable group of citizens.

I just haven't seen that evidence.

 

Most of the companies I know of do have a strict definition of SO to avoid fraud.

As far as cost, in the long run married employees are usually more cost efficient - fewers absences, fewer resignations. The reason companies have instituted SO benefits is they recognize these benefits. The companies currently incur the cost and legal obligations of married couples so the increase, given the precentage of gays who might marry would not increase it over what they are currently paying in SO benefts with less paperwork and hassle over who is a SO.

 

Perhaps and perhaps not. But fraud is but one consideration.

On the one hand we have legal obligations, inescapable once entered into a marriage contract. Those obligations are imposed by government. They are imposed on the premise that marriage is a long-term commitment. Any legal actions accepting of a lesser commitment would undermine the premise on which the legal obligations are imposed.

Let's start at the beginning and consider what excuse there can be for government to impose upon people any legal obligation to other people..

 

No offense, Nosborne, but your analysis seems superficial. I suspect you are allowing some commendable but obscuring emotions to cloud your judgment.

How did government come to assume authority over marriage? Why marriage but not business partnerships?

That's too textbook for me. I wish to question the premise of "State interest" and the question of gay marriage affords a good opportunity for questioning.

 

Originally Posted by Deb

Why limit it to just two people?

 

Legal reasons. Right now the government recognizes marriage as two people with the sexual orientation undefined in most states. Other groups who share benefits, such as stock or insurance benefits, are determined by various definitions of "company".

Personally, I don't have a problem with pural marriages but that's a whole different argument. It would require the Federal government to extend social security / death benefits, tax benefits, etc to companies and that gets very complicated.

 

Deb,

Marriage is much a religious thing. It's about a man and a woman committing for life and for better or worse and for the chillun produced by the man and the woman. (Or the woman and the milkman but that's another matter.) The legal obligations imposed by government are based in the assumptions of that religious commitment. Change the assumptions and you change the legal equation in ways not predictable.

There's something else I think people are missing about the nature of government. Government is not a plaything for the purpose of realizing desires. Government is not a tool to be taken from the drawer as needed. If you enlist government to determine the nature of your marriage, and to impose on all citizens the legal obligations they must accept of your marriage, then you invite into the determination of your marriage the opinions of all 380 million citizens.

 

Are they considering gay marriage in Germany too?

 

decimon,

Well, surprising as it may seem, my analysis is coming from my concern that Courts not impose their personal moral codes on constitutionally valid legislation. I am not particularly concerned with the moral or even social implications.

little fauss will probably faint when he reads this!

 

No kidding.

 

I'm not at all surprised. I think your concerns misplaced.

How about this: We get government out of the business of determining marriage and leave that to whichever private institutions deign to sanctify things. Government's role becomes that of enforcing legal contracts. If I decide to pool resources with another party or to commit resources to another party then I can do so through contract. Any children produced or adopted derive the benefits of implied contract.

 

I think this would be great. "Civil union" would actually be the contract with the government and marriage would be want was done completely seperately in a ceremony choosen by the parties and not having any legal effect on anything.

But your plan requires such a major overhaul of so many laws that it will never happen. So, why not work with what we have to make sure it is fair to as many people as possible?

 

Originally posted by Deb

A non-religious reason would be a little tough. Isn't the root of most law "religiously" grounded. I mean even the code of Hammurabi was handed down by the sun god Shamash.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Deb
Any two, consenting adults, should be able to marry without having to prove anything

Posted by kansasbaptist
Why limit it to just two people?

Posted by Deb
Legal reasons

Exactly. We have been legislating limits on marriage for a long time and many are based on religious beliefs.

I make no apologies, my reasons for objecting to gay marriage are religious (just as are my reasons for objecting to polygamy).

 

I think my plan, as it were, would require the elimination of many laws. Making the current laws "as fair to as many people as possible" is what will require the overhaul of mucho beaucoup laws.

 

Well, overhaul would cover the elimination and rewriting. We know how hard it is to get a law overturned once it is on the books.