Not allowing gay marriage violates co...

Not allowing gay marriage violates constitutional rights

There are 3253 comments on the South Florida Sun-Sentinel story from Feb 6, 2008, titled Not allowing gay marriage violates constitutional rights. In it, South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that:

The entire idea of banning gay marriage is nothing short of discrimination. Why don't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee quoted the Declaration of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

First Prev
of 163
Next Last
Kevin

Hobe Sound, FL

#1 Feb 6, 2008
I agree with you. Nothing will change until the hypocrites are out of office. You will see a lot of very misguided and misleading statements from ban supporters on this blog, all quoting the same out dated, religious dogma that has taken control of the very simple minds of the republican right.

Since: Dec 06

Boynton Beach, Fl

#2 Feb 6, 2008
Whether you are in favor of gay marriage or not, it is quite presumptuous to claim a ban is unconstitutional without actually specifying any qualifications as to why anyone should take Justin Torner's opinion seriously. Is Justin Torner a Constitutional scholar? Perhaps, he could tell us what part of the Constitution a ban on gay marriage violates. Which Constitution is he referencing? The US Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government over marriage. That is a state issue. As I recall, only Massachusetts has had a ruling favorable to gay marriage. Other state rulings have felt it was a legislative issue.

Rick

Since: Jul 07

Cincinnati, OH

#3 Feb 6, 2008
Rick Caird wrote:
Whether you are in favor of gay marriage or not, it is quite presumptuous to claim a ban is unconstitutional without actually specifying any qualifications as to why anyone should take Justin Torner's opinion seriously. Is Justin Torner a Constitutional scholar? Perhaps, he could tell us what part of the Constitution a ban on gay marriage violates. Which Constitution is he referencing? The US Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government over marriage. That is a state issue. As I recall, only Massachusetts has had a ruling favorable to gay marriage. Other state rulings have felt it was a legislative issue.
Rick
If it's not unconstitutional in the state then why add an amendment?
Moo

Boston, MA

#5 Feb 6, 2008
Rick Caird wrote:
The US Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government over marriage. That is a state issue. As I recall, only Massachusetts has had a ruling favorable to gay marriage. Other state rulings have felt it was a legislative issue.
Rick
True, but then why does DOMA exist, if the Federal government has no authority over marriage?

As far as states' rights, Massachusetts has OKed same-sex marriage, but the Feds and other states don't recognize those marriages as valid. I know more than one couple who would love to move out of Massachusetts to be closer to their families, but they won't because their relationship wouldn't be recognized in their home states. These couples also commit tax fraud every year, because there's no way for them to file jointly as a married couple federally.

Really, though, how is not allowing same-sex couples to marry NOT discrimination, and how is that discrimination not religiously-based? That is, I think, where the Constitutional argument plays in..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

No, Congress hasn't established a federal religion, but I really haven't heard any arguments against same-sex marriage that aren't based on the Christian Bible. Have you?

Since: Jul 07

Cincinnati, OH

#7 Feb 6, 2008
HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:
<quoted text>even the animals abhor homosexuality and kill those that practice it...i guess that they don't find it "outdated dogma"
???

This is new. Never heard this before. Do you have a link I can use to look into it more?
classic095

Palm Harbor, FL

#8 Feb 6, 2008
HEYMIDDLEAMERICA:

Animals abhor homosexuality?? better do some research:

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."[14]

Some researchers believe it to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[15] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[16] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirm that permanent homosexuality occur in species with permanent pair bonds, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
Brad T

Englewood, CO

#9 Feb 6, 2008
HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:
<quoted text>even the animals abhor homosexuality and kill those that practice it...i guess that they don't find it "outdated dogma"
Really! Where do you get your information? Your church? I have my masters in biology and study animal behavior, that said, I can assure you, that your comment is truly incorrect. The only animal that truly does comment the act you describe is the human animal.
Ghost

Ann Arbor, MI

#10 Feb 6, 2008
The issue of same-sex marriage actually serves to highlight the Constitution's weaknesses. The arguments claiming bans on same-sex marriage recognition to be unconstitutional are actually pretty weak, and require an interpretation that relies on the intent or 'spirit' of the law, in contrast to one that would be a literal reading of its text.

As for the federal government's involvement in marriage, it should be limited to enforcement of the 'full faith & credit clause', which can itself endure exceptions like the Defense of Marriage Act, since Congress is explicitly granted the power to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Usurpation of state powers is not atypical of the federal government, very often accomplished through some tortured interpretation of the commerce clause.

Now, none of this means that I agree that such bans are good for our country or any individual state - quite the opposite. I find DOMA to be a mockery of the 'full faith & credit" clause, despite its apparent constitutionality where that clause is concerned.

While much of anti-gay sentiment is rooted in religion, there's a fine line between establishing laws based in certain 'values' that may flow from one's faith, versus actually attempting to make a ade facto establishment of religious doctrine through the tool of law. We know people may favor such basn because of their religious beliefs, but can we prove the intent of those laws is to make an establishment of religion? It's not small feat.

May people look to the "equal protection under the law" enumerated in the 14th amendment, but it only guarantees that the law will be administered equally, not the actual fairness of the law in establishing/maintaining equality.

It is time for a new Constitution, but getting there would likely require a revolution - civil strife and disobedience on a level that almost no one seems particularly keen to undertake, with no guarantee that the outcome would be any more favorable to same-sex couples than the current situation.

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#11 Feb 6, 2008
Rick Caird wrote:
Whether you are in favor of gay marriage or not, it is quite presumptuous to claim a ban is unconstitutional without actually specifying any qualifications as to why anyone should take Justin Torner's opinion seriously. Is Justin Torner a Constitutional scholar? Perhaps, he could tell us what part of the Constitution a ban on gay marriage violates. Which Constitution is he referencing? The US Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government over marriage. That is a state issue. As I recall, only Massachusetts has had a ruling favorable to gay marriage. Other state rulings have felt it was a legislative issue.
Rick
Hawaii and Iowa are two other states that have had similar rulings.

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#12 Feb 6, 2008
devons wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's not unconstitutional in the state then why add an amendment?
Exactly!
eric

Denver, CO

#13 Feb 6, 2008
HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:
<quoted text>even the animals abhor homosexuality and kill those that practice it...i guess that they don't find it "outdated dogma"
What a great world it would be if the animals would get hold of you.
Lucifer Peccato

Lake Worth, FL

#14 Feb 6, 2008
Ghost wrote:
The issue of same-sex marriage actually serves to highlight the Constitution's weaknesses. The arguments claiming bans on same-sex marriage recognition to be unconstitutional are actually pretty weak, and require an interpretation that relies on the intent or 'spirit' of the law, in contrast to one that would be a literal reading of its text.
Hmmmm...you seem to know much about the constitution. I have a question...If a religious group allows same-sex couples to unite, why wouldn't that fall under freedom of religion.

I understand that the freedom of religion clause has its limits. But why would the union of same-sex couples ne one of those limits?
While much of anti-gay sentiment is rooted in religion, there's a fine line between establishing laws based in certain 'values' that may flow from one's faith, versus actually attempting to make a ade facto establishment of religious doctrine through the tool of law. We know people may favor such ba[ns] because of their religious beliefs, but can we prove the intent of those laws is to make an establishment of religion? It's not small feat.
Again, I would make the argument that same-sex mariages should not be banned because of freedom of religion. I think that way the burden of proof would be on the religious zealots.

Addtionally, this MIGHT make the anti-same-sex union people think twice about having the government interfere with religious belief.

I also think that government (local, state, or federal) should not be involved in marriage at all (other than record keeping etc.).
I agree

United States

#15 Feb 6, 2008
I agree Justin, bless your heart for writing this and exposing the lies and inequalities gays expereince, I will never vote for Mr. Martinez or any current elected officials, nor Mr. hateful Huckabee toward gays. We need more love and tolerance for gays, God made us, yet the same people want us out, they need to practice more of what the bible and Jesus talk about, loving all and accepting us. I want gay marriage for all, lesbians, we deserve the right to be with our partners and have the same rights, as it is now, my partner and I have to live in separate countries and I must fly there all the time to maintain our relationship, if we were a straight couple we could marry, but gays are not allowed, I am so sick and tired of all these hateful politicians that use their religion to stop us from being together in holy matrimony as well, they are hypocrites, the constitution says equal rights for all men. We as gays are second class citizens and often second-class sibblings as well, try to insist on having your parents put a picture of you and your gay partner on the wall of all family pictures in your house, just because we are gay, doesn't me we do not have feelings and have families, what defines a family. If the USA doesn't get its act together soon, many gays will go to live in Canada, the UK, Spain, Germany and the married of coutnries that now respect gays and our unions for immigration purposes, even Mexico City does, the USA is way behind the times on this issue. God is testing all you hetero-sexuals, an dI am afraid you are not passing the test of your true Christianity.
Equal rights for all

United States

#16 Feb 6, 2008
I say equal rights for all! Gays must keep fighting for their right to receive all equality that heteros now get. Never surrender! It has to happen soon, keep up the good fight.
George

United States

#18 Feb 6, 2008
We'll find out if it's not a constitutional right when they have the vote on the amendment.

It should be pretty entertaining watching both side spin and lie with their ads

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#19 Feb 6, 2008
If people believe that the current law in Florida restricting marriage to a man and a woman is constitutional, why the need to add that wording to the Florida constitution? Why not simply rely on the law that has been on the books and is being enforced in this state?

The only plausible reason is that those supporting this amendment believe the majority of judges will soon agree with the courts in Hawaii and Massachusetts which found no constitutionally-valid reason to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. They CLAIM to be afraid of "one activist judge", but appellate courts and ultimately the state supreme court are in place to overrule any single judge.

So that leaves two possibilities. Either those pushing for this amendment are completely ignorant of the appellate process in our judicial system, or they believe the current law is indeed unconstitutional.

Since: Dec 06

Boynton Beach, Fl

#20 Feb 6, 2008
devons wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's not unconstitutional in the state then why add an amendment?
No one said that gay marriage was unconstitutional in any particular state. All that the courts who declined to rule that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, were saying was that it was a legislative prerogative and not a question of constitutionality.

DOMA simply said that those states who do not want gay marriage are not required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Rick
WPB

Boca Raton, FL

#21 Feb 6, 2008
Be thankful you can't get married. Opposite sex marriage should be banned also, for the good of all men.
Kathy Hope

Sheridan, MT

#22 Feb 6, 2008
Rick Caird wrote:
Whether you are in favor of gay marriage or not, it is quite presumptuous to claim a ban is unconstitutional without actually specifying any qualifications as to why anyone should take Justin Torner's opinion seriously. Is Justin Torner a Constitutional scholar? Perhaps, he could tell us what part of the Constitution a ban on gay marriage violates. Which Constitution is he referencing? The US Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government over marriage. That is a state issue. As I recall, only Massachusetts has had a ruling favorable to gay marriage. Other state rulings have felt it was a legislative issue.
Rick
What about in the Constition were it says we have the right of the pursit of happiness. arent we denying gays and lesbians there pursit of happiness? the answer is yes, that right ther is in the consition and it is guarenteed to every American Citizen!!!
VET

West Palm Beach, FL

#23 Feb 6, 2008
Kathy Hope wrote:
<quoted text>
What about in the Constition were it says we have the right of the pursit of happiness. arent we denying gays and lesbians there pursit of happiness? the answer is yes, that right ther is in the consition and it is guarenteed to every American Citizen!!!
Please, Please show me where in the Constition it talks about right of the pursit of happiness

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 163
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Daniel Lungren Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Health care fight moves to campaign trail (Jul '12) Aug '12 Eighthman 43
News "I don't believe it's helpful to frame our adve... (Dec '11) Feb '12 Trisha 5
News Calif. Rep. Lungren caught speeding while on air (Jul '10) Jul '10 Why oh why 1
News Lungren's silence on BP (Jun '10) Jun '10 Don Kosloff 6
News Lungren deserves to be ousted (Apr '10) Apr '10 Harold Bolquist 6
News Lungren has moneyed foes for 2010 (Oct '09) Nov '09 HDFan 4
More from around the web