The backers of same sax marriage are arguing that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. They claim it is a civil rights issue, because the decision by the state to outlaw such marriages creates an economic burden on those who are denied same sex marriage, because they do not have the same rights as those who are allowed opposite sex marriage.
I am not a trained physician, have not gone to medical school, and have not passed the states medical licensing boards requirements to become a practicing physican. I cannot get a license to practice medicine. Society has determined that they want only specifically trained physicans to practice medicine. Just because this places an economic burden on me does not mean that my civil rights have been violated.
First, civil rights refer to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Not education or professional license.
Society has always reserved the right to restrict certain parts of society, and same sex marriage is no different. No person is being treated differently. ALL PERSONS are free to be married, but if you choose to be married, it must be to a member of the opposite sex, and both people in the marriage must be of the age of legal maturity. Those are the restrictions placed by society upon the arrangement of marriage.
If it is deemed that society does not have the ability to set restrictions and limitations upon marriage, such as outlawing same sex marriage, then society does not have the ability to set any restrictions of any kind on marriage. Presently it is not legal for relatives closer than second cousins to marry. It is not legal for people to engage in multiple marriages at the same time. It is not legal for multiple people to engage to marriage together. It is not legal for an adult and a child to marry. Each of these restrict the exact same things as a ban on same sex marriage, and if banning same sex marriage is a civil rights violation then banning these are also civil rights violations.
Good people can disagree on the rightness or wrongness of same sex marriage. In the end though society has the final say. If society chooses to outlaw it then it is a REQUIREMENT of the elected officials to up hold that law. If they wantonly violate that law, they are in breach of their legal responsibilities and should be removed from office, and should be prosecuted for breaking the law. If your elected officals deliberately violate that social contract you are but one step removed from anarchy. That is the situation in the State of Oregon, because of the decisions by a group of four elected officals. The State of Oregon has decided that physician assisted suicide is legal. I personally find this law to be abhorrent, but the people of this society have decided that they are willing to allow it. That is part of the social contract I find highly offensive, but as a society we have decided to allow it. I have no choice but to accept that, which I do. The same goes for abortions. I may find to be offensive, but we as a society have allowed it be legal. As such I may find it offensive, and I can work to change it, but I would never condone or support the killing or injuring of a Dr. that chooses to perform it.
I also find ridiculous the latest arguements against a constitutional amendment identifying marriage as between a man and a women. The standard argument is that we should be careful about changing the constitution willy nilly. These are the same people who support the judicial activism that creates new constitutional rights out of thin air from the state and federal bench. These are also the same people who argue over and over that the constituion is a living breathing document, and must be added to and changed with the changes that happen in society. But when society wishes to specifically codify into the constitution what it deems to be specific parts of the social contract, those who wish to do so are engaging in a behavior that is bad for the society. In other words we should not decide for ourselves what we want our social contract to be, we should allow appointed judges to make those decisions for us.
"The backers of same sax marriage are arguing that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. They claim it is a civil rights issue, because the decision by the state to outlaw such marriages creates an economic burden on those who are denied same sex marriage, because they do not have the same rights as those who are allowed opposite sex marriage."
Civil rights issues refer to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Not education or training. And this goes far beyond econmics. Its about the right to visit your partner in the hospital or make medical decisons your partner. Its about having the right to NOT testify against your partner in a court of law. Its about not having to fill out 2 of those annoying custon claims. There are actually 1,400 legal rights and claims afforded to married couples.
"Presently it is not legal for relatives closer than second cousins to marry."
These only speaks to individuals.. Jack can't marry Jill because they are cousins. However Jack can marry any other women he falls in love with or he can marry just for sport. However if Jack is gay he can never marry anyone he falls in love with.
"It is not legal for people to engage in multiple marriages at the same time."
All Jack needs to do is absolve one marriage to enter into another. And if they want a happy little circle they can alternate months.
"It is not legal for an adult and a child to marry."
This is just not true. Although the "legal" age is 18 in most states and it speaks to abiltiy to consent, in most states a 14year old (13 in NH) can marry a 80 year old as long as they have parental consent some state require a judge's order. So while there are some requirements on min. age there are no requirements on the max. age of the spouse (regardless of the age of their intended).
"I also find ridiculous the latest arguements against a constitutional amendment identifying marriage as between a man and a women. The standard argument is that we should be careful about changing the constitution willy nilly."
The amendment is wrong because it intentionally discriminates against a whole group of tax paying citizens.
Look this isn't about economic or even those annoying custom claims. It's about saying that someone will never be able to marry the person they love. In a society where about 50% of marriages end in divorce, about 30% of married people admit infidelity and so may get married (money, boredom) it seems really unfortunate to tell a entire segment of our population that they will never be able to marry because of love.
Show Posts