Church and state and same sex marriage.

[BabyMine]

If there is suppose to be a separation of church and state why can't same sex couples get married?

[dcmom2b3]

I've wondered similarly, namely, how the laws vesting clergy with the power to perform marriages recognized by the state got their start, and why the've survived constitutional challenges (which I presume there have been -- don't know, however). I probably should have learned this in Con law class.

You've got me thinking -- off to do some research! Will post back if I find anything. (And yes, I am a geek . . .)

[BabyMine]

I've wondered similarly, namely, how the laws vesting clergy with the power to perform marriages recognized by the state got their start, and why the've survived constitutional challenges (which I presume there have been -- don't know, however). I probably should have learned this in Con law class.

You've got me thinking -- off to do some research! Will post back if I find anything. (And yes, I am a geek . . .)

Thank you!!! We can be geeks together.:D

[Penny's Pappa]

(I'm not a lawyer. These are just my thoughts. Take them with a grain of salt.)

Well, at the expense of being Captain Obvious, same sex couples can't get married because it's illegal for them to do so. Those laws, though written by people who are likely to be religiously opposed to same sex marriage, are not an expression of religious belief in and of themselves. They simply define what a marriage is and who it can be between; they don't give a reason as to why it should be defined that way.

'Course we all know those laws are, to a great extent, a reflection of religious beliefs. Certainly our legislators are allowed to have religious beliefs and certainly those beliefs can influence their philosophies, their values, and, consequently, the policies they will support and vote into law. However, regardless of one's personal beliefs, at the end of the day our laws are ultimately governed by the Constitution of the United States and the rights and protections that it grants to ALL citizens of the United States.

So, I think the real argument that we need to be having in terms of the gay marriage debate is not so much the separation of church and state -- though that's a big part of the debate too -- but one of equal application of, and equal protection under, the law. By what reasoning can it be argued that there should be a legal disparity between the marriage rights of heterosexual couples and gay couples? What interest does the State have in forming such a disparity? What benefit is served to society by it?

I have yet to hear a compelling, objective answer to any of those questions.

[kijip]

My opinion? (Valid or not?) Because our laws institutionalize bias against gays in the same way that they used to so prevalently institutionalize sexism and racism.

A general reason (valid or not?): Because some people have decided the state has an interest in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, usually in the interest of the family or children or in the interest of adhering to a moral code that considers homosexuality wrong or unacceptable.

Just trying to sorta see both sides, I am sooo firmly in support of gay marriage. My brother and his partner are raising 2 daughters and have been together more than 5 years. Their relationship is just and valid as anyone else here. And on the kids benefit argument: WHAT good does it do their daughters to bar them from marrying?

[ellies mom]

By what reasoning can it be argued that there should be a legal disparity between the marriage rights of heterosexual couples and gay couples? What interest does the State have in forming such a disparity? What benefit is served to society by it?

I have yet to hear a compelling, objective answer to any of those questions.

Did you read the judge's decision on the recent prop 8 ruling? It is pretty long but I worked my way through it. It was quite thorough and very well written.

[Penny's Pappa]

And on the kids benefit argument: WHAT good does it do their daughters to bar them from marrying?

Agreed. Though perhaps more to point: what HARM does it do to the daughters to let them get married?

And what of relationships without kids? I mean, having children or the desire to have children is not a legal requirement for marriage, so I don't see how the kids' benefit argument could be used as a rationale for prohibiting gay marriage across the board.


Did you read the judge's decision on the recent prop 8 ruling? It is pretty long but I worked my way through it. It was quite thorough and very well written.

I had started it shortly after his ruling but have not had the chance to finish it. I really should take the time.

[maestramommy]

I may be wrong but are there any actual laws written that prohibit same sex marriage specifically? I thought that is why all these states are debating passing laws ALLOWING same sex marriage. And some states (like CA) are debating the same on BANNING same sex marriage. My impression was nothing was explicitly stated in state constitutions (or in the US constitution, for that matter).

[BabyMine]

Why wouldn't it be covered by the 9th amenment? I just don't understand how it is illegal.