My argument for gay marriage
Eric ~ The Logician
2010/11/18 15:58:16
Finally, I'm going to put this on a blog so I can link to it instead of typing it up every single time.
I'll try to explain this so that the simplest of minds can understand it.
These are the benefits of marriage by the state:
Allows medicinal decisions on behalf of the partner,
sick leave to care for partner,
social security survivor benefits,
tax breaks,
visitation rights in hospital or prison,
assumption of spouses pension,
automatic inheritance,
automatic housing lease transfer,
Bereavement Leave,
Burial Determination,
Child Custody,
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits,
Divorce Protections,
Domestic Violence Protection,
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death,
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse,
Insurance Breaks,
Joint Adoption and Foster Care,
Joint Bankruptcy,
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records),
Certain Property Rights,
Reduced Rate Memberships,
Visitation of Partner’s Children,
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
and hundreds more.
Denying homosexuals these rights is blatantly unconstitutional in two ways:
Fourteenth Amendment -
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
In most states, gays are not able to have those benefits listed above. They are not being equally protected by the law. They are being denied over a thousand benefits on the sole fact that they are homosexual.
First Amendment -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The origin of marriage is religious. It is almost entirely in religion that people get the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and homosexuals cannot marry. I can see that is why people would look at legal marriage as if it were religious marriage. But, since congress (or states) can't make a law respecting religion, we have to look at legal marriage as completely secular. It becomes clear that the desire to take marriage rights away from gays is breaking the first amendment, and the result is breaking the fourteenth amendment.
"But we voted on it and the majority decided it should be illegal."
Wrong. That is called "tyranny of the majority." There is a reason our forefathers preached that we had a republic, not a democracy. There are some things the people cannot vote on -- this is one of them. This is one issue that needs to be thoroughly evaluated in court. Not left to the people who do not even know what the evidence is for either side of the argument. Since the case can be made that the non-recognition of gay marriage is unconstitutional, it can and should be taken up in the supreme court.
"But the supreme court can't make the decision. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue."
It's a state issue until they break federal rules. Kind of like how if I vandalize my neighbors house, it's a local issue, but if I vandalize his mailbox, it's a federal issue.
The fourteenth amendment says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which...." The constitution is a federal document restricting any government -- federal or state -- from doing something.
Think about it. Let's say that for some reason a lot of people hate you. Literally, the majority of people don't like you, and they think it should be illegal for you to leave your house. Would you go along with it if there was a vote? Would you simply accept that the majority rules, and that you have a civic duty to stay in your house until you die? I think not. I think you would probably take it to the supreme court with the fourteenth amendment memorized. And, you would probably win.
I'll try to explain this so that the simplest of minds can understand it.
These are the benefits of marriage by the state:
Allows medicinal decisions on behalf of the partner,
sick leave to care for partner,
social security survivor benefits,
tax breaks,
visitation rights in hospital or prison,
assumption of spouses pension,
automatic inheritance,
automatic housing lease transfer,
Bereavement Leave,
Burial Determination,
Child Custody,
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits,
Divorce Protections,
Domestic Violence Protection,
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death,
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse,
Insurance Breaks,
Joint Adoption and Foster Care,
Joint Bankruptcy,
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records),
Certain Property Rights,
Reduced Rate Memberships,
Visitation of Partner’s Children,
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
and hundreds more.
Denying homosexuals these rights is blatantly unconstitutional in two ways:
Fourteenth Amendment -
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
In most states, gays are not able to have those benefits listed above. They are not being equally protected by the law. They are being denied over a thousand benefits on the sole fact that they are homosexual.
First Amendment -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The origin of marriage is religious. It is almost entirely in religion that people get the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and homosexuals cannot marry. I can see that is why people would look at legal marriage as if it were religious marriage. But, since congress (or states) can't make a law respecting religion, we have to look at legal marriage as completely secular. It becomes clear that the desire to take marriage rights away from gays is breaking the first amendment, and the result is breaking the fourteenth amendment.
"But we voted on it and the majority decided it should be illegal."
Wrong. That is called "tyranny of the majority." There is a reason our forefathers preached that we had a republic, not a democracy. There are some things the people cannot vote on -- this is one of them. This is one issue that needs to be thoroughly evaluated in court. Not left to the people who do not even know what the evidence is for either side of the argument. Since the case can be made that the non-recognition of gay marriage is unconstitutional, it can and should be taken up in the supreme court.
"But the supreme court can't make the decision. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue."
It's a state issue until they break federal rules. Kind of like how if I vandalize my neighbors house, it's a local issue, but if I vandalize his mailbox, it's a federal issue.
The fourteenth amendment says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which...." The constitution is a federal document restricting any government -- federal or state -- from doing something.
Think about it. Let's say that for some reason a lot of people hate you. Literally, the majority of people don't like you, and they think it should be illegal for you to leave your house. Would you go along with it if there was a vote? Would you simply accept that the majority rules, and that you have a civic duty to stay in your house until you die? I think not. I think you would probably take it to the supreme court with the fourteenth amendment memorized. And, you would probably win.
Top Opinion
-
+35Gays have been proven to be far better parents than straight parents, for primarily moral reasons. Heterosexual parents acquire their children through biological reproduction, which means that their relationship with their children is based on sex. Homosexual parents acquire their children primarily through adoption, which means that their relationship with their children is based on love. This is the best argument for defending gay marriage and criminalizing heterosexual marriage.
• visitation rights in hospital
• Visitation of Partner’s Children
• Child Custody
-- they are not monetary, but based on emotional support. And court documents certifying your right to such do not count enough, as evidenced by the gay man who was denied access to his dying partner in Oregon, despite having a living will, power of attorney, and medical declarations stating the patient's desire to have the man there (the hospital just thought that their moral right to deny a gay man access was more important). Never mind that the man won a lawsuit against the hospital -- he would rather have been able to have been there for his partner as he died.
Bottom line: gays and lesbians will never have family rights to their partners in some people's minds. The only guarantee is a legally binding marriage.
And I forgot to press you to answer my question. Just to put it into context - In Vermont, where same-sex marriage is recognized and the benefits are given, do you think that is less equal than in a state with no civil unions?
"Vermont's legislature voted to legalize same-sex marriage by overriding the veto of Republican Gov. Jim Douglas. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each legislative body had to vote for the override."
That's how every law on the federal level is made, and that's how every law at the state level SHOULD be made. I'd be glad to see this be challenged in court, I have confidence that upon reviewing all of the evidence, it's blatantly clear that the state should recognize gay-marriage.
Democracy is terrible, this issue is a perfect example. All of those people who left their house just to deny gays rights don't understand the issue at all. They think gays are trying to get more rights than straights. They think we're trying to force religious churches to perform ceremonies for gay couples. A staggering percentage of people in the U.S. don't know the difference between marriage by the state, and marriage by religion. That's why it shouldn't be up to them to decide who gets to marry.
No, gays are eligible for all those benefits, they are denied none. They are equally protected under the law.
You list the benefits of marriage to gay individuals. You show no benefit to the state for granting gay marriage, only additional costs. There was a clear benefit to the state from straight marriages at one time. The benefit is not so clear now.
I would support the elimination of all state endorsed marriages before expanding it to include gay marriage.
Marriage may benefit the gays, but I don't GAF about the gays. Why should a 25 year old man whose husband dies be provided SS survivor benefits for 5+ decades? Income tax exemptions, 10 million gay spouses costs 50 billion plus a year in lost government income. Sick leave and insurance, business forced to pick up those costs or drop the benefits for everyone? Divorce protection, not needed if not married! Domestic violence, already protected by many laws. All most all your claimed "rights" have a cost to someone, you just wish to have it transferred to someone else. It would benefit some at the cost of many tens of billions a year to society.
Civil unions with a strong contract could address virtually every issue you are concerned about without making others pay to support the lifestyle.
You're saying it as if gay marriage is more costly than straight marriage. I'm concerned about equality. If cost is an issue you still have to consider equality while considering cost. You can't just say straights have a right to marry over gays because straights were allowed first and we can't afford to have both. (and cost isn't really an issue here to begin with, if you're worried about cost go protest the two wars and the Bush Tax Cuts)
The law is equal, gays have the same rights, they are equal.
Do you support plural marriage?
Do you support two boys or girls marrying at 14? That would be legal in some places.
I am wondering if you are for true "equality" or just as it agrees with your views?
BTW what do 2 wars and Bush tax cuts have to do with business costs?