Why people say Gay marrage is just the tip of the iceberg

[cdunn]

The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason. So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't. I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer. Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored. If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon. Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.

Here in Pennslyvania, the clergy are authorized to perform a marriage, as are every judge and mayor in the state. While there are many idiots who may well push a boundary, it is difficult to construe authorization as requirement, though ***-covering for the clergy is acceptable. However, it is also right and proper to expect that those hired or elected to a position of secular authority, such as a judge or mayor, should be required by law to perform those same secular duties... such a same sex marriage.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Marriage being a civil ceremony, all civil servants authorized to perform a marriage, should marry anyone who qualifies.

Churches who offer a religious ceremony, can follow their own rules.

The fact that clergy is authorized by the state to perform marriage is secondary here.
They are paid by the church, they can follow the church's rules.

Judges, are paid by the public, so should follow the law.


Marriage being a civil ceremony is a matter of public record.
All states are required by the US Constitution to recognize each others public records.

 

[ballen0351]

Here in Pennslyvania, the clergy are authorized to perform a marriage, as are every judge and mayor in the state. While there are many idiots who may well push a boundary, it is difficult to construe authorization as requirement, though ***-covering for the clergy is acceptable. However, it is also right and proper to expect that those hired or elected to a position of secular authority, such as a judge or mayor, should be required by law to perform those same secular duties... such a same sex marriage.

I dont think anyone should be required to preform the marriage. If you disagree then you should be allowed to disagree. Would you want someone to preform your wedding if you knew they were against it? I wouldnt Id rather find someone that was ok with it so I didnt risk them messing up my special day. There would be plenty of judges and clerks around that wount have a problem do it.
On the flip side I also see what your saying as a police officer I do things sometimes I dont agree with but Its my job so I dont really have an answer.

 

[Steve]

Nothing to do with end of the world. Its a question where do we draw a line? 25 years ago gay marriage was hardly a thought in main stream America. In 25 years from now what will be the next thing fought for? Whales? After all who are we to stand. In the way of love?

25 years ago? That puts us in the 80s, when politicians and religious leaders were vehemently working to convince everyone that gay was a bad habit or a disease, like drug addiction or alcoholism.

10 years before that and being openly gay could realistically cost you your job, your home or your family. 10 years before that and you risked your life by coming out.

Point is, I agree with you that we are not where we were 25 years ago. But where you see a problem, I see progress. I see us, as a society, moving in a direction that's extremely positive with regards to people who I absolutely believe do not choose to be gay. And when you put it on a timeline, it becomes very clear that we are where we are now as a society precisely because of milestones that have been achieved.

So, in summary. You're right. This wasn't being talked about in mainstream society. But, I disagree that this is represents something negative.

But I do want to point out that it was an issue in the late 80s among gay and lesbian couples, and in 1993, Hawaii was the first State to find the prohibition against gay marriage to be unconstitutional. Baehr vs Lewin really set the wheels in motion.

 

[WC_lun]

I don't see what the issue is, as long as those involved are consenting adults...so things like marrying an animal would not be allowed, because the animal can't give its' consent.

The "reason" gay marriage is not allowed is simple; prejudice. Yeah, 25 years ago it was not normal to see gay people as committed people in a relationship. 25 years ago it was also odd to see interacial couples. That does not mean that there haven't always been gays or interacial couples. Interacial couples marrying hasn't has a negative effect on society as it was claimed it would and I have yet to see a convincing arguement on how gays marrying would either. To me that is the crux of whether it should be allowed. Why shouldn't it? If the answers are nonsense, like it isn't natural, God doesn't like it, or it is the tip of the iceberg, then it should be allowed. Prejudice should not be the basis of law.

 

[ballen0351]

25 years ago? That puts us in the 80s, when politicians and religious leaders were vehemently working to convince everyone that gay was a bad habit or a disease, like drug addiction or alcoholism.

10 years before that and being openly gay could realistically cost you your job, your home or your family. 10 years before that and you risked your life by coming out.

Point is, I agree with you that we are not where we were 25 years ago. But where you see a problem, I see progress. I see us, as a society, moving in a direction that's extremely positive with regards to people who I absolutely believe do not choose to be gay. And when you put it on a timeline, it becomes very clear that we are where we are now as a society precisely because of milestones that have been achieved.

So, in summary. You're right. This wasn't being talked about in mainstream society. But, I disagree that this is represents something negative.

But I do want to point out that it was an issue in the late 80s among gay and lesbian couples, and in 1993, Hawaii was the first State to find the prohibition against gay marriage to be unconstitutional. Baehr vs Lewin really set the wheels in motion.

I agree progress is a good thing. My question was when is enough enough? They way people talk about gay rights in the past is what people say about Constitutional rights for whales today Its nuts that will never happen ect. So in 2045 will people be trying to marry a dolphin? Dolphins can respond to question and shake there heads yes so the annimals cant say yes wont apply. Is there a line we should not cross? Or is everything ok as long as your happy?
I think there should be a line Im just not sure where it should be.

 

[CanuckMA]

Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.

And that is exactly how the Canadian law is phrased. In the 8+ years it has been Federal law, it has never been challenged. Mostly because for those who wish a religious ceremony, there are plenty of clergy of every religion and denomination that will perform the ceremony.

 

[CanuckMA]

I dont think anyone should be required to preform the marriage. If you disagree then you should be allowed to disagree. Would you want someone to preform your wedding if you knew they were against it? I wouldnt Id rather find someone that was ok with it so I didnt risk them messing up my special day. There would be plenty of judges and clerks around that wount have a problem do it.
On the flip side I also see what your saying as a police officer I do things sometimes I dont agree with but Its my job so I dont really have an answer.

That's a little tougher. For those of u living in larger metropolitain areas, it would never be a problem. But in smaller towns, where there may only be one or 2 people to perform marriages, I can see same sex marriage not being available. And let's face it, civil marriage is not exactly a long, involved ceremony. It's mostly signing a contract.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And that is exactly how the Canadian law is phrased. In the 8+ years it has been Federal law, it has never been challenged. Mostly because for those who wish a religious ceremony, there are plenty of clergy of every religion and denomination that will perform the ceremony.

I would tend to doubt that Roman Catholic priests in Canada perform same-sex marriages. Perhaps there are some that do, but definitely not with the blessing of Rome; it would be considered an invalid marriage by the Church. Are there Roman Catholics who are gay? You bet there are.

And again, just because it has never been challenged in Canada is no bellwether for the USA. I can predict with some certainty that it WILL be challenged in court at some point, and plenty of same-sex marriage supporters and haters of the Catholic Church (we have a few right here on MT) will fervently demand that the RCC be forced to perform such ceremonies. Do you seriously doubt that will happen?

 

[ballen0351]

Prejudice should not be the basis of law.

All laws are based on Prejudice. A group of people say something is bad and a law is made. Drugs are illegal because a group of people say they are bad. There is another group that say they are not bad and people should be allowed to do what they want. Age of consent laws are enacted because people said sex with minors was bad. There is a group of people that believe sex with children is natural and a good thing.
quoted from Nambla site: http://www.nambla.org/stories.html
Man/Boy Love is as old as love itself, and stories of it have been told for thousands of years.

Change man/boy to gay and its the same argument. peopl give as to why Gay marriage is ok.

Now Im not saying Nambla and gay marriage are the same lvl One is clearly and rightfully illegal the other is not. But again I ask where is the line drawn. If your OK with Gay marriage do you see a line?

 

[ballen0351]

That's a little tougher. For those of u living in larger metropolitain areas, it would never be a problem. But in smaller towns, where there may only be one or 2 people to perform marriages, I can see same sex marriage not being available. And let's face it, civil marriage is not exactly a long, involved ceremony. It's mostly signing a contract.

Yeah I thought of that after I posted.

 

[Tez3]

Not really I watched a show the other day about a woman in your neck of the woods that wanted to marry a wall. She was madly in love with this wall. Now I believe that's more mental abnormality then anything but it happens.

That as may be but it wasn't my point that people don't do such things but that here politicians, religious leaders etc don't bring that up as an argument for not having gay marriage, it's seen for what it is an odd occurance not a reason fro banning something, I don't honestly think it occurs to anyone that allowing gay marraige leads to people marrying animals or inanimate objects

 

[WC_lun]

Its nuts that will never happen ect. So in 2045 will people be trying to marry a dolphin? Dolphins can respond to question and shake there heads yes so the annimals cant say yes wont apply. Is there a line we should not cross? Or is everything ok as long as your happy?
I think there should be a line Im just not sure where it should be.

No a dolphin cannot consent to marriage, even if it can nod its' head. In the same way that a two year old can nod his head, there is lack of informed consent. This is a non-issue designed to stoke fear in people so they will not give equal rights to human beings. It is sad to see that so many people let it work.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No a dolphin cannot consent to marriage, even if it can nod its' head. In the same way that a two year old can nod his head, there is lack of informed consent. This is a non-issue designed to stoke fear in people so they will not give equal rights to human beings. It is sad to see that so many people let it work.

It is not a non-issue, unfortunately. As much as you and I might agree that a dolphin cannot give consent, I am certain I can find people who earnestly believe that dolphins are sentient beings as smart or smarter than humans and entitled to the same rights as humans. Sentient creatures granted the same rights as humans obviously can give consent. Do I agree? No. But are there people who believe it? Yes. So it is not a non-issue.

 

[ballen0351]

No a dolphin cannot consent to marriage, even if it can nod its' head. In the same way that a two year old can nod his head, there is lack of informed consent. This is a non-issue designed to stoke fear in people so they will not give equal rights to human beings. It is sad to see that so many people let it work.

So for you informed consent is the line? So as long as you have consent between two parties they can marry?
I think thats were I fall as well with exception for age.

 

[WC_lun]

So for you informed consent is the line? So as long as you have consent between two parties they can marry?
I think thats were I fall as well with exception for age.

Yes, informed consent. That is why a child cannot marry. While a child could give thier consent, they do not have the experience or knowledge to understand the consequences, so the consent would not be "informed." Much like a child cannot enter into a legally binding contract...which is what marriage is to the state. So the age thing is moot too

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, informed consent. That is why a child cannot marry. While a child could give thier consent, they do not have the experience or knowledge to understand the consequences, so the consent would not be "informed." Much like a child cannot enter into a legally binding contract...which is what marriage is to the state. So the age thing is moot too

Many states have very low 'Age of Consent' laws, FYI. Some have stricter laws regarding marriage to relatives as well. And of course, we have many new members of our US society among whom the notion of child brides is not unheard of. There is nothing stopping such groups from attempting to get the laws changed to allow for such things here; there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.

I think all anyone is saying is that everything is one the table once you redefine what marriage is. We have had this discussion on MT before; if you look, you will find people saying that if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land; then what's to stop three-way marriage from being legal too? And you will find some MT members who said "DAMN RIGHT! WE SHOULD HAVE THREE-WAY MARRIAGE!" They were not, to the extent that I can determine, joking. So when people voice their concerns about where this will all end, I think they have a very valid point. You may think it's one change, one time, and that's the end of it. Many others see this as a stepping stone to get what they want, which is very different from what you may see as acceptable. But once the door is open, it's open.

 

[WC_lun]

So Bill, just so I understand, it is okay to deny equal rights under the law to a large segment of our population because some people might take it too far? Given that line of logic, there are many laws that should be struck down immediately, and our constitution becomes meaningless because just about every section could be twisted to unentended consequences...which happens and is why we have a supreme court. This reasoning for not giving people equal rights does not pass the logic test, in my opinion.

 

[ballen0351]

So Bill, just so I understand, it is okay to deny equal rights under the law to a large segment of our population because some people might take it too far? Given that line of logic, there are many laws that should be struck down immediately, and our constitution becomes meaningless because just about every section could be twisted to unentended consequences...which happens and is why we have a supreme court. This reasoning for not giving people equal rights does not pass the logic test, in my opinion.

We already dont have equal rights in marriage laws.

 

[CanuckMA]

I would tend to doubt that Roman Catholic priests in Canada perform same-sex marriages. Perhaps there are some that do, but definitely not with the blessing of Rome; it would be considered an invalid marriage by the Church. Are there Roman Catholics who are gay? You bet there are.

In church as a full RC rite? don't think so. But I would not be surprised if some did officiate at civil ceremonies, with some religious trappings. And that's how it should be. I would actively oppose any attempt to force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings.

And again, just because it has never been challenged in Canada is no bellwether for the USA. I can predict with some certainty that it WILL be challenged in court at some point, and plenty of same-sex marriage supporters and haters of the Catholic Church (we have a few right here on MT) will fervently demand that the RCC be forced to perform such ceremonies. Do you seriously doubt that will happen?

I'm sure it's been thought about. But the thing is, the content of the legislation was analyzed by constitutional experts and brought to our Supreme Court to ensure that the language and intent would survive a challenge. That goes a long way to discourage challenges.

And you can't not pass legislation because it may get challenged in the future. Write it right the first time.