Comments on: should gay marriage be unconstitutional? http://blog.ebrahim.org/2004/07/11/should-gay-marriage-be-unconstitutional/ Ali Ebrahim on web standards, software developement, technology, politics and law. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:34:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jason http://blog.ebrahim.org/2004/07/11/should-gay-marriage-be-unconstitutional/#comment-67 Jason Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:19:53 +0000 http://blog.ebrahim.org/2004/07/11/should-gay-marriage-be-unconstitutional/#comment-67 While the state has no right to impose a religion on people, there is an implicit ok to impose "morality" in some circumstances. For example, we don't allow men to marry two women at once. Everyone pretty much universally agrees on that point. So why not? Because we as a society, have determined that there are negative social and economical implications to bigamy. It also happens to be something that most Americans would say is "immoral." So it's off limits because it has bad effects and it's immoral. So does Gay marriage meet that same limit? I beleive it does. We as a society, IMHO, are allowed to encourage activities that are beneficial to society and discourage activities that are not. Marriage has traditionally been about encouraging the creation of families, with one man and one woman. Studies (and centuries of history) have shown that raising children in this environment is best. Gay marriage is a problem for me because it uses the word "marriage" -- which carries with it lots of baggage (see above). Civil unions are no problem for me, and those that get civil unions should be entitled to the same rights as married people. So you get "Gay Marriage" without the word. Works for me. As an aside, in any case, I thing an Amendment is a bad idea. I don't think this issue is important enough to make it in the Consiution. Other things that don't belong in Constitutions: <a href="http://www.floridabullettrain.com/" rel="nofollow">Bullet Trains</a> and <a href="http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/pigs_constitutional_rights.htm" rel="nofollow"> Pregnant Pigs</a>. :) While the state has no right to impose a religion on people, there is an implicit ok to impose “morality” in some circumstances. For example, we don’t allow men to marry two women at once. Everyone pretty much universally agrees on that point. So why not? Because we as a society, have determined that there are negative social and economical implications to bigamy. It also happens to be something that most Americans would say is “immoral.” So it’s off limits because it has bad effects and it’s immoral.

So does Gay marriage meet that same limit? I beleive it does. We as a society, IMHO, are allowed to encourage activities that are beneficial to society and discourage activities that are not. Marriage has traditionally been about encouraging the creation of families, with one man and one woman. Studies (and centuries of history) have shown that raising children in this environment is best.

Gay marriage is a problem for me because it uses the word “marriage” — which carries with it lots of baggage (see above). Civil unions are no problem for me, and those that get civil unions should be entitled to the same rights as married people. So you get “Gay Marriage” without the word. Works for me.

As an aside, in any case, I thing an Amendment is a bad idea. I don’t think this issue is important enough to make it in the Consiution. Other things that don’t belong in Constitutions: Bullet Trains and Pregnant Pigs. :)

]]> By: Ran http://blog.ebrahim.org/2004/07/11/should-gay-marriage-be-unconstitutional/#comment-66 Ran Tue, 13 Jul 2004 05:42:17 +0000 http://blog.ebrahim.org/2004/07/11/should-gay-marriage-be-unconstitutional/#comment-66 Where is the separation of church and state? You have been mislead, my friend. There is no such critter and it never was intended to be. The government shall make no law concerning an institution of religion. That's it. Period. The interpretation that there must be no religious influence in government is unconstitutional and unfounded. You can have all the religion you want in government. You CANNOT, however, have ANY government in religion. It's a one-way street. As for this specific issue, homosexuality is not an institution of religion. But I'm sure that if this argument were the only one preventing homosexuals from getting marriage privileges, it would be established as a religion in short order. You said: "there is no reason why those who do not share my beliefs should not be able to derive the same legal protections and benefits that opposite-sex married couples currently enjoy" Sure there is: society wants to discourage this behavior. Just because it is not politically correct to say it, doesn't mean most of society doesn't feel that way. It's just like most of the income tax laws -- they exist to encourage preferred behavior, like giving to charity or investing long-term rather than short-term. Where is the separation of church and state? You have been mislead, my friend. There is no such critter and it never was intended to be. The government shall make no law concerning an institution of religion. That’s it. Period. The interpretation that there must be no religious influence in government is unconstitutional and unfounded. You can have all the religion you want in government. You CANNOT, however, have ANY government in religion. It’s a one-way street.

As for this specific issue, homosexuality is not an institution of religion. But I’m sure that if this argument were the only one preventing homosexuals from getting marriage privileges, it would be established as a religion in short order.

You said:
“there is no reason why those who do not share my beliefs should not be able to derive the same legal protections and benefits that opposite-sex married couples currently enjoy”
Sure there is: society wants to discourage this behavior. Just because it is not politically correct to say it, doesn’t mean most of society doesn’t feel that way. It’s just like most of the income tax laws — they exist to encourage preferred behavior, like giving to charity or investing long-term rather than short-term.

]]>