A question for those opposed to gay marriage.

[Rukentuts]

Those on the right (of whom I typically align with) shout out saying that its not up to the feds to govern states affairs.

Then "those on the right" would be completely wrong, as the Constitution does and will always cover all states. The judge struck down the law for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: therefore in his interpretation no state has any right to restrict marriage in this way.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Contracts require government and are the purview of government.

Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government and is not related to a governmental institution of marriage or regulation of marriage whether that contract involved child custody or a bank merger.

[Wells]

Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government and is not related to a governmental institution of marriage whether that contract involved child custody or a bank merger.

Marriage is a contract that creates certain arrangements with regard to things like child custody, property rights, inheritance and the like. You're demanding government get out of the business of marriage contracts so they can be replaced by contracts doing the same thing not called marriage contracts. Its stupid.

[Rukentuts]

Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government and is not related to a governmental institution of marriage whether that contract involved child custody or a bank merger.

And without enforcement of a contract, what's the point of it existing?

[D3thray]

By contract signed by the two (yeah there could be more than two if there is some kind of surrogate mother stupidity, but you know what I mean) individuals. If no contract exists, the mother has first right. Simple as that.

Why exactly should the mother have first right under your system again?

[MathAddict]

The federal government does have to step in at times to make sure states are not doing whacky shit. Civil rights is typically an issues the federal government is great for monitoring the states on. I am not a huge fan of the federal government, but I am glad it is there when it comes to protecting minority rights.

Sadly, there are many people all over the U.S.A. that get very vocal and motivated when they are on the losing side of those civil rights movements.

[IIamaKing]

Why exactly should the mother have first right under your system again?

I wondered that as well.

[Itisamuh]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an "everybody wins!" mentality.

But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.

[kritisk]

States rights should not, and never will in the long run, outweigh human rights. Period. Doesn't matter which direction a "ban" would go. The rights of minorities should NEVER be voted upon by a majority, lest they not be real "rights."

Marriage is a legal concept in our country. It should be available between consenting adults as would any other legal contract apply. No one that I've seen has tried to force churches or other religious institutions to approve of these things. So it's a non-issue. It doesn't affect anyone other than those involved. Don't like it? No problem, express that. It's no different than people who wanted to continue with slavery or interracial marriage bans. (And this is NOT a slippery slope to non-consenting concepts like bestiality, etc.)

It would be nice if marriage offered no LEGAL benefits beyond rights of inheritance and such, perhaps then we could call it domestic partnership and let the pedants stop worrying about the word itself without regard to the benefit the legal aspects bestow.

[Wells]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.

How does the state go out of its way by allowing gay marriage. It seems to me the state goes out of its way trying to stop them.

[D3thray]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.

So you're saying essentially that governments should never have intervened and raised the age of consent from 12 in the first place. They obviously have no business changing along with the society they govern.

[Tradewind]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman. It has nothing to do with state vs federal (for me anyway.) I simply see no reason for society to go out of its way to support every single oddity people can come up with. Especially since, if we deviate from the obvious norm once, then why not do it again? Why not legalize incest, provided both parties consent? Why not lower the age of consent to post-puberty, since they do it anyway? Etc. None of those things are "natural restraints" and all of them involve "natural attraction." If we revoke our purely man-made laws for one deviation, then all the others start asking for it, and the reasons for denying them become flemsy. Better to just not cross the line in the first place and have a set standard in my opinion. And that principle can apply to basically everything, not just this. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, or wanting to deny rights, but rather having more concrete, set standards of life. Of course, as we become a more liberal society, my "archaic" standards will continue to get phased out in the name of goofy political correctness and an everybody wins mentality.

But, as someone said earlier, it gets ridiculous having laws completely change from one state to the next. So as much as I would rather keep my conservative state conservative, I understand why the federal government steps in sometimes.

Yes...legalizing gay marriage can easily be equated to legalizing incest and fucking children.

Sweet merciful fuck...

[Kujako]

No, because the normal status quo is man plus woman.

Nope. The "normal status quo" is unmarried.

[Rukentuts]

Yes...legalizing gay marriage can easily be equated to legalizing incest and fucking children.

Sweet merciful fuck...

You know. Orientations...fetishes...same thing and all.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. The "normal status quo" is unmarried.

But but, our morals.

[Tradewind]

Nope. The "normal status quo" is unmarried.

Only if you believe Jesus didn't ride a dinosaur. Otherwise it's always been that way!

[DEATHETERNAL]

And without enforcement of a contract, what's the point of it existing?

I think I specifically said "Enforcement of contracts is the purview of the government..." in what you quoted, so I'm not sure what you are asking.

Marriage is a contract that creates certain arrangements with regard to things like child custody, property rights, inheritance and the like. You're demanding government get out of the business of marriage contracts so they can be replaced by contracts doing the same thing not called marriage contracts. Its stupid.

Marriage is not currently a contract. It lacks any degree of certainty and specificity in regard to what actually happens in cases like child custody, property rights, inheritance, and the like. It currently simply gives the government the power to decide things in those situations instead of leaving the decisions up to the individuals involved in them. It is bribing the citizenry with tax benefits in exchange for power over children and property in the case of alteration or cancelation of the marriage. Leave people to their own liberty to make those decisions for themselves either in contract or at the time they arise. Demanding that the government enforce its arbitrary will on those matters needlessly is unneeded and unjust.

Why exactly should the mother have first right under your system again?

Because she bore the child. She was by nature the first guardian of the child and so retains first claim. Don’t like it? Get your women to sign a contract giving equal rights both you (the father) and her or whatever you want.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I wondered that as well.

In my situation I'm glad my Mom stayed as my parent for obvious reasons. Dad wasn't around(Biological sperm donor if you will) but still rather be my Mom. Honestly it should depend on the circumstances.

[araine]

I can guarantee if it happened, there would be a lot of outrage.

Majority rule etc like what right wingers like to pamper themself in when they know they are wrong on the issues of civil rights. The fact that you say it will be outrage just means you arent a fully supporter of states rights at all time. So you admit it is wrong for states to make laws about who can marry whom.

[Tradewind]

You know. Orientations...fetishes...same thing and all.

I have an "Orientation" for red heads with firm tits.

[Raptor With a Saber]

If it ever happened I would laugh for a few hours then seek medical attention because my sides would have split open. It would poetic justice sort of. States right but peoples vote/federal law taken into account. If the people voted for straights to not be able to get marry and the supreme court deemed it constitutional then yes it would pass. As it is now the constitution doesn't state that only straight people can get married so ruling banning gay marriage was unconstitutional was the correct thing to do. The states are just falling in align with something that shouldn't have been an issue to begin with.