• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The Supreme Court and gay marriage: a reading list

Do you support Gay Marriage?

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
It seems to me that 90% of the arguments FOR gay marriage are based upon equality and nondiscrimination, and that 90% of the arguments AGAINST gay marriage are religion-based and want to discriminate against a particular group.

How does my marriage, or anyone's marriage, affect someone else's? How can it weaken or lessen one's commitment to another? Is marriage that fragile? What is so frightening that a seemingly warm-hearted, well-intentioned, caring people should be so cruel to their brothers and sisters?

Marriage is a legal civil status that conveys certain legal privileges. Among these are lower taxes by filing jointly, automatic rights of inheritance and survivorship, next of kin issues, the right of a spouse not to testify against a spouse, to name only a few. How is denial of gay marriage any different, any less wrong, than the denial of bi-racial marriages of the past? To deny these and other legal privileges to a particular class of committed couples seems to me to violate equal protection rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Amendments and laws that deny equal protection for everyone must always be overturned. I don't understand how it could be otherwise.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities... and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the court . . . . (F)undamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

I certainly hope that the current Supreme Court justices will agree.
 
I support gay marriage and I think there is no reason it should not be legal nationwide, I imagine it will have to be legalized one day, just as bi-racial marriages are now legal, and I hope that day has come now. To uphold laws based on certain religions' ideas of what marriage should be would invalidate quite a few marriages, mine included.
 
BoyBleu said:
It seems to me that 90% of the arguments FOR gay marriage are based upon equality and nondiscrimination, and that 90% of the arguments AGAINST gay marriage are religion-based and want to discriminate against a particular group.

How does my marriage, or anyone's marriage, affect someone else's? How can it weaken or lessen one's commitment to another? Is marriage that fragile? What is so frightening that a seemingly warm-hearted, well-intentioned, caring people should be so cruel to their brothers and sisters?

Marriage is a legal civil status that conveys certain legal privileges. Among these are lower taxes by filing jointly, automatic rights of inheritance and survivorship, next of kin issues, the right of a spouse not to testify against a spouse, to name only a few. How is denial of gay marriage any different, any less wrong, than the denial of bi-racial marriages of the past? To deny these and other legal privileges to a particular class of committed couples seems to me to violate equal protection rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Amendments and laws that deny equal protection for everyone must always be overturned. I don't understand how it could be otherwise.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities... and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the court . . . . (F)undamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

I certainly hope that the current Supreme Court justices will agree.
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more, and I would extend those self same rights to any form of marriage including polygamous marriages, as allowed under several different cultures / religions and an other form of union that exists anywhere on the planet.

If two people wish to join in a civil union called 'marriage' - hey maybe its time for a redefining of terms? - they deserve the rights, benefits and protections of such a union. It isn't up to the State to make moral decisions. It is up to the State to protect the rights of ALL it's citizens.

On the other hand the State should not interfere with religion. If a church or churches want to refuse to perform certain ceremonies that are odds with their beliefs (and I'm not just talking about Christianity here as there are many different faiths with different beliefs who will and will not do certain things that others will and will not do as an unrelated example some faiths like to slaughter a chicken and burn candles, others do not) the State should not dictate to ANY faith what it may or may not do, as the freedom of religion should also be protected.
 
I could not agree with you more, and I would extend those self same rights to any form of marriage including polygamous marriages, as allowed under several different cultures / religions and an other form of union that exists anywhere on the planet.

If two people wish to join in a civil union called 'marriage' - hey maybe its time for a redefining of terms? - they deserve the rights, benefits and protections of such a union. It isn't up to the State to make moral decisions. It is up to the State to protect the rights of ALL it's citizens.

On the other hand the State should not interfere with religion. If a church or churches want to refuse to perform certain ceremonies that are odds with their beliefs (and I'm not just talking about Christianity here as there are many different faiths with different beliefs who will and will not do certain things that others will and will not do as an unrelated example some faiths like to slaughter a chicken and burn candles, others do not) the State should not dictate to ANY faith what it may or may not do, as the freedom of religion should also be protected.
Click to expand...

Well said. I wouldn't say that I "support" gay marriage, but I don't see how the State's decision to sanction it should affect me in any way. Biblical marriage is defined by a whole lot more than what gender the participants are. For some reason though, that is all you ever hear about. I think it is a thinly veiled excuse for the fact that the people making all of the noise simply do not like homosexuals. If they were so concerned about the religious aspect, shouldn't they be just as concerned, if not more, about atheists getting married? I know a lot of people who believe in God do not feel the same way I do, and that is fine with me. I just don't think it infringes on my right to my beliefs and therefore I don't think too much about it.
 
It appears that we are all in pretty much agreement. And I for one, would never deny anyone their religious/moral beliefs, and therefore would not expect -- nor force -- any clergy (of whatever faith) to sanction a marriage against his or her faith. But as I stated earlier, in this country marriage is by law a civil arrangement and therefore equality and nondiscrimination is of the utmost importance and in keeping with our individually protected Constitutional rights.

As for polygamy, sure, why not if all parties are of appropriate ages of consent and decision making. Polyandry (one female and multiple males) too.
 
BoyBleu said:
It appears that we are all in pretty much agreement. And I for one, would never deny anyone their religious/moral beliefs, and therefore would not expect -- nor force -- any clergy (of whatever faith) to sanction a marriage against his or her faith. But as I stated earlier, in this country marriage is by law a civil arrangement and therefore equality and nondiscrimination is of the utmost importance and in keeping with our individually protected Constitutional rights.

As for polygamy, sure, why not if all parties are of appropriate ages of consent and decision making. Polyandry (one female and multiple males) too.
Click to expand...

Yes but sadly the debate seems to have come down to a religious (one in particular) vs the State instead of it being just a civil issue around giving every citizen the same rights and protections.

I think what annoys me the most is that Christianity is by no means the only religion to have religious objections to homosexuality (and other hot issues of our time), it is just unfortunate that some followers are very loud on certain subjects while the other two of the 'Big Three' remain somewhat silent, while objecting no less.

I'm not defending the religious nuts (of any flavour), it just annoys me that the religious aspect of the issue centers around one particular group, when others also object just strenuously, just a whole lot more quietly. It confuses the reality of the bigger picture and diverts the debate.
 
Meadow337 said:
Yes but sadly the debate seems to have come down to a religious (one in particular) vs the State instead of it being just a civil issue around giving every citizen the same rights and protections.

I think what annoys me the most is that Christianity is by no means the only religion to have religious objections to homosexuality (and other hot issues of our time), it is just unfortunate that some followers are very loud on certain subjects while the other two of the 'Big Three' remain somewhat silent, while objecting no less.

I'm not defending the religious nuts (of any flavour), it just annoys me that the religious aspect of the issue centers around one particular group, when others also object just strenuously, just a whole lot more quietly. It confuses the reality of the bigger picture and diverts the debate.
Click to expand...

I thoroughly agree.
 
Gay marriage is already legal here in Canada and has been for I think about a year. There are also Protestant churches here which perform these marriages but not all of the churches are in favour. I see no problem with civil unions where each partner has the same rights as if it were a man/woman union. There are probably people who would wish that the church be legislated into performing same sex marriage and I don't agree with that.
 
Randy Shilts wrote extensively on gay civil rights and issues ranging from military exclusion of gays to AIDS advocacy. His books are not to be missed.
 
BoyBleu said:
It appears that we are all in pretty much agreement. And I for one, would never deny anyone their religious/moral beliefs, and therefore would not expect -- nor force -- any clergy (of whatever faith) to sanction a marriage against his or her faith.
Click to expand...

I think that has to be the final logical position for both sides of the gay marriage debate.
 
One of the things that annoys about the argument against gay marriage is the insistence it's for the preservation of traditional marriage. Do those using that argument understand marriage was not a man and woman meeting, falling in love and wanting to commit their lives together until recently.

Marriage was a financial, or political arrangement bartered and brokered by men from the consolidation of wealth, power and political alliances. And the bride was a piece of property used in the negotiation.
 
Not to mention that what constitutes a marriage, or if there is even such a thing varies from culture to culture. There are so many different forms of social contract in different cultures, with different ceremonies involved, that to try and define 'marriage' in any way other than in a purely neutral fashion with certain legal obligations and rights will discriminate against some or the other culture.

A truly free and fair society will protect the rights of ALL the different cultures within it whilst affording individuals freedom to follow their own religious or cultural beliefs.

If marriage for you constitutes painting yourself blue and singing Yankee Doodle Dandy whilst standing on your head with your partner(s) your right to do so should be protected whilst ensuring you do not insist that this is the ONLY way it can be done.
 
One of the things that annoys about the argument against gay marriage is the insistence it's for the preservation of traditional marriage. Do those using that argument understand marriage was not a man and woman meeting, falling in love and wanting to commit their lives together until recently.

Marriage was a financial, or political arrangement bartered and brokered by men from the consolidation of wealth, power and political alliances. And the bride was a piece of property used in the negotiation.
Click to expand...

I don't know that this was universally true. I think religious belief, love, and procreation have also played a part of varying significance from culture to culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top