Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 6 years ago

What is your opinion of the argument, below, in favor of same sex marriage, and the subsequent rebuttal?

In Favor:

"Once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Moreover, ... by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages ... , Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Citing Cleburne (473 US 432, 1985), the court underlined in its ruling: "The electorate cannot order a violation of the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses by referendum or otherwise, just as the state may not avoid their application by deferring to the wishes or objections of its citizens." These precise and prescient words were completely lost on J. Sutton who, writing for the 6CA's panel majority in review of the trial court's decision, found that there is no "US Constitutional right to same-*** marriage". J. Sutton's ruling is "obviously wrong", as described by J. Daughtrey's dissent. It will be easily overturned by a clear majority of the US Supreme Court, alongside the DeBoer ruling, come June 2015. The vote will be at least 6, possibly 7 justices, judging by their refusal to issue a stay in Marie v. Moser and Brenner v. Armstrong."


"Yeah, but, Jesus."

4 Answers

  • 6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    That's been the obvious conclusion for anyone vaguely familiar with US law since Lawrence v. Texas (once homosexuality's not a crime, then you can't prevent marriage & the rest follows). Unfortunately there are a lot of nutcases who don't even pretend to make decisions based in law in the American court system, so I'm not counting my chickens.

  • Archer
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    When it comes to the constitution and equal rights we are currently in debate on what actually constitutes "Marriage". Is it the Church's interpretation or the governments and each faction is attempting to dictated to the other. Because it is currently a debate and not a "decision" we are not "constitutionally" bound to honour that which another state has authorized. Since there is a distinct division of church and state established in the constitution it is the Governments interpretation which is relevant at this point. Until such time as the Government determines as a whole what a "Marriage" actually is then we will become obliged to accept and facilitate the life choices of others. In my book for a gay couple to seek ratification of their union from the Church is like a black man seeking validation of his existence from the KKK. Civil unions bare and contain the same legal attributes as a Marriage in most states. It is the gay community who is attempting to change the concept of marriage from a heterosexual to just about anybody concept.

  • 6 years ago

    Words have meanings, like the meaning of an apple is different from orange, though both are fruits. The argument I heard against redefining marriage, one which I agree with, was not to deny non-heterosexual to form lawful unions, rather, if need be invent new term, don't redefine existing. In our day and age of same-sex unions, polygamy and such, where does it stop? For legal reasons, some pet owners want to leave their entire estate to their pet - should they be allowed to marry their pets to secure legal survivor benefits for their Fido and Fluffy? Speaking of whych, marrying more than one pet - poly-faunal relationship? How would even that work - would it be poly-something or just ??? Okay, am being a bit silly to illustrate the point the main objection I came across from sensible individuals is not opposing legal unions per se, rather the redefinition of an existing word. It's like, okay, let's redefine "democracy" to also embrace ideologies of "dictatorship and tyranny" so that would-be tyrannical dictators would be permitted to treat free democratic societies as slaves. I personally have no problem with legal unions, some forms rub me the wrong way (and I wasn't kidding about "marrying one's pet, albeit such real-case scenarios are rare, for now anyway), my issue is with redefining words to mean more than they should. English has over 200 thousand words, is it that humongous deal to add another? Did we have to redefine "hippopotamus" to later upon invention of the dish, to also mean "omelet", and later to also convey "kitchen sink"? It's perfectly alright in my opinion to create new words, we don't have to limit ourselves to recycling established words to mean ever more and more than they should. This is not about my injecting my morality into the issue, as I realize for something to be legal does not necessarily mean it is also moral according to some moral traditions, however... let's stop confusion via redefinition. Let's preach moral conduct, and let people choose between legality and morality, in the meantime let's not mess up meanings. We already get confused enough when it comes to discerning intelligence from a hole in the ground, why compound it via redefinition? Anyway, that's my position, nevermind technical legalities, mine is about ... to repeat myself nth time ... redefinition of established meanings.

  • laslo
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    There shouldn't even be an "argument" about this.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.