Why should the law be changed? I have a reason. With DSM IV, homosexuality is no longer a treatable mental illness or a deviant behavior, but is recognized as merely an alternative lifestyle.
mek, you have got to be kidding me. That is hilarious. You cannot rail against laws based on religious opinions on the one hand, then base law on the pronouncements of a bunch of psychologists on the other. Nor can you seriously claim that all mentally healthy behavior must on that basis be legal.
All that aside, no one here (well, maybe Hugh Damright, I haven't read his posts) is trying to stop homosexuals from homosexualing, living together, or having weddings. I am simply saying that homosexual relationships offer nothing that would merit government recognition.
I was using the DSM IV change to reinforce that at one time homosexual activity was socially / legally unacceptable but that it now is (at least legally) acceptable. I think, but do not know for a fact that the legal changes preceded the DSM change. The change of legal and social status is, obviously, more important to the status of homosexual marriage than the DSM change - in this I think we agree though we disagree on the issue in general.
For the simple fact that both hetero- and homosexual unions involve adult human beings, and, in this country at least, all adult human beings have equal protection under the law.
1) I don't see how you construe equal protection of the law to mean that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I don't think that equal protection has ever meant that before. I think we are back to the assertion that the 14th "Amendment" means that every State must have homosexual marriage, even though the 14th had no such intent or purpose.
If heterosexual unions are treated differently than homosexual ones, there's a problem.
2) Heterosexual relationships have been treated differently than homosexual ones since time began, what has been the problem?
Think of it this way, what if the debate was about interracial unions, which were once against religious laws. Seperate but equal was found to be wrong on May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
3) Yes, these are good examples of how the US spins the 14th "Amendment" to mean whatever they fancy. The 14th was not intended to force black/white marriage upon the States or to integrate the schools, and for the feds to come along a century after the amendment took effect and make up such new constructions seems like a poor attempt to cover up despotism.
(I added numbers to the above quote)
1) Regarding what the various amendments are "for", people argue that the second need only be interpreted towards the state of the art military arms of 1789 - thus stipulating that ownership of modern fully automatic weapons is clearly not protected by Amendment II even if it is an individual right. I do not agree with this view.
2) No. Ancient Greece and feudal Japan recognized same-sex relationships. Additionally,
this site, a same-sex relationship information site, reports:
Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage. In other cultures (see the debate between Brent Shaw and Ralph Hexter) the meaning of same-sex unions remains opaque and complex. In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted.
Even if the historical precedents cited are not identical to heterosexual marriage at the times / places given, the fact that Canada has equal same-sex marriage nullifies this argument. Before anyone brings up that the US and Canada are different, "since time began" implies a broader view than strctly that of America.
3) Just like Amendment I is obviously not intended to apply to radio, television or internet forms of the press.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
I'd say marriage is a privilege.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,...
Liberty means:
1. The condition of being free from control or restrictions.
2.The condition of being free from imprisonment, slavery or forced labour.
3.The condition of being free to act, believe or express oneself as one chooses.
4.Freedom from excess government control.
...without due process of law;...
Due process:
1. A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when he/she is being deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
2.The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are laws governing marriage. These laws help protect married people. Homosexuals are people. They are afforded the same protection under the law as heterosexual people. To say otherwise ignores section 1 of the amendment above.
At the very least, each homosexual couple seeking to marry which the state wishes to deny should be granted a fair hearing and/or trial by judge or jury to appeal the decision to comply with due process in regards to the deprivation of life, liberty and property as all three of these issues are impacted by the ability to marry. This will, of course, increase taxes to cover these costs, but if the citizens of a given state truly disagree with same-sex marriage they will surely decide to send in extra money on top of their tax bill to ensure that these hearings happen in accord with the law.
