|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2013 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
It is pretty clear to me from the strength of the emotion on the opposition to
gay marriage that many regard marriage as part of their religion, so I am
having a lot of trouble understanding how marriage is not an establishment
of religion which the state has no business being involved in.
That is, the correct legal stance is to abolish state recognition of marriage,
and replace it with recognition of domestic partnership. Leave marriage up
to the churches and synagogues and mosques and other temples.
(Christenson, quickly jumping into his flameproof suit)
Noting that the state should indeed not be in the business of arbitrating
morals where ethical people come to opposite conclusions, but wondering
if the courts should take no role when a class of people is singled out for
deprivation of rights that serves no legitimate state purpose.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
but it's not. It is a legal construct, defined in every state. As such, marriage
is subject to the Constitution. Scalias choices are:
1. Effectively cancel all state laws concerning marriage.
2. Allow gay marriages.
Calling it a 'moral' issue is a really bad strawman argument. ALL law is built
on 'moral' arguments. That a law may coincide or conflict with religious
standards is irrelevant.
I would refer him to the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
