Those would be Jewish reasons for opposing homosexuality. For it to be Christian you would need some citations of the NEW Testament.

• MissingChico Said:

Chico, the point Aolain and I were making was this....since day one of this debate, there were basically two roads to accomplish the same goal. The first road (chosen by the activists) was to seek an expansion of the definition of marriage to include gay marriages (allowing for married same sex couples to be recognized and given equal rights under the law). This first road would have left the language of a Civil Union unchanged (and to your point, inferior to marriage).

The second road would have been to leave marriage alone, but seek to strengthen the Civil Union language to that of equal rights to marriage. This would have been a concession in WORDS, but probably would have been achieved long ago. Of course, the road chosen was their right, but it seems (to me) that their cause has been hindered by that choice. Sometimes you have to give a little to gain a lot.

Interesting article, but it doesn't mention where the right to same sex marriage can be found in the constitution.

Interesting article, but it doesn't mention where the right to same sex marriage can be found in the constitution.

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.

Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.

In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.

The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional. The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus. Another application has been to strike down legislation requiring certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be confined against their will.

• Joe Schirmer Said:

Where is the "right" to a heterosexual marriage located in the Constitution?

Hint - it's not. Equal protection under the law is in the Constitution, however.

• Joe Schirmer Said:

Where can the right to opposite sex marriage be found in the constitution?

The 14th ammendment does however say:

• usconstitution.net Said:

And "due process" doesn't mean a vote of the people.

• usconstitution.net Said:

If marriage has been defined for over 5 thousand years as the start of a new family, then how is the inability of a same sex couple to be married denying them "due process" when it is nature which is denying the same sex couple the ability to start a family? Why the sudden urge to change the institution of marriage to where it is no longer considered the start of a new family?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. it started 1000's of years ago and it WAS a religious covenant that was entered into. A man and a woman came together under the eyes of God to become ONE and to create a family.

• Joe Schirmer Said:

By that logic one could make the case that a couple unable or unwilling to have children can't be married since it isn't the start of a new family. I'd be willing to bet that many gay couples consider themselves a family just like many childless herosexual couples consider themselves a family. Thousands of years ago polygamy was common and the definition of family was considerably different that it is now. Definitions of social institutions evolve.

• Uncle Al Said:

Slight clarification. It has historically been a more of a civil institution. In the west, it was Christianity which turned marriage into a sacrament. Ever since marriage has been a civil/religious institution in the west.

If this was a purely religious institution, then I would say the government has no business handing out marriage licenses.

Ok, so where does one start . . . .

My youngest brother is "gay" so I do have a view on this that is NOT full of hate or "homo-phobia", however . . . .

Marriage is between a man and a woman. it started 1000's of years ago and it WAS a religious covenant that was entered into. A man and a woman came together under the eyes of God to become ONE and to create a family.

Here we are 1000's of years later and we find ourselves in a "world society" where there is acceptance of what, just 50 years ago, was totally
against social mores. Fifty years ago the closet doors were chained and locked !

So, here we are in 2010 and find ourselves debating whether two MEN having sex constitutes the same basic relationship that a male/female marriage entails.

It's "apples and oranges" folks. "Gays" aleady have the "right" to get married . . . JUST like everyone else. The issue is that they DON'T want to marry someone of the opposite sex. becuase of this they WANT to have their own seperate "right" to do as they please.

I understand how two men can really care for eachother and feel totally ripped off when they do not have the same "rights" to enter a hospital room, etc. That is an issue that should be legislated with hospitals, NOT with re-defining marriage in my view.

I work in an industry that is full of "gay" people. I have a brother that "is" gay. With the experience that I have aquired . . . I see this "Gay Marriage" issue as one more step to try and achieve acceptance, nothing more.

At first the "gay community" just wanted to be 'left alone to do thier thing". Slowly they have chiseled away at social mores to try and gain acceptance. Their feelings of inadequecy motivates them(generalized) to want their behavior to be accepted by society. That is what this is folks.

This isn't about civil rights. "Gays" have the SAME "civil rights" as "straight" people. They want their OWN civil rights that will then make them feel that in the eyes of society . . . they are as good as the "breeders".

There is NO malice in my thought process as I write these things . . . so please don't go there.

So, what say you?

• sco Said:

As I said earlier, the intent to have children is essential in defining marriage. It does not makes any sense to be married if you do not intend upon having children. If a couple (of any gender orientation) wish to cohabitat then I think that a civil union would be the appropriate institution to use at that point.