Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Pujo, Jul 12, 2006.
The issue has gotten muddled... I'm curious where you all see the line.
Right here, Pujo:
The first section of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:
"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."
Sorry, I think you answered before I had a chance to put the poll up - I didn't mean for it to be an open-ended question.
We've had lots of comments in other threads, but I'd figure all the pro "traditional marriage" crowd would want to make their opinions clear for once.
That still doesn't answer why marriage should be limited to two consenting, non married adults.
The consenting part is clear - you can't have a contract without the consent of all parties.
The adults part is clear - children can't consent or enter into a contractual relationship.
The two part is stupid, the government shouldn't care how many wives or husbands someone has. Polygamy's not an arrangement that would work for me, but there's no reason to impose monogamy on everyone. Actually, the government should just get out of the business of recognizing marriage at all, which would avoid all these sticky situations.
As most have probably figured out, I'm really just being stupid to make a point that marriage "discriminates" against a lot of options other than gays. But I agree on polygamy - and why any man would want two wives is beyond me :bricks:
That's great, but how come you don't want to vote?
You made each choice so specific I didn't really like any of them I'll vote for the one I like the best, but I may not really agree with it entirely.
You voted for the trick choice... I don't know how someone could claim that heterosexual marriage is a constitutional right while gay marriage isn't. You can say whatever you want about them not being morally equivilant, but the language of the constitution certainly doesn't make a distinction (on account of not mentioning the word marriage at all).
Like I said, there wasn't a choice I liked. That one was the closest but I said beforehand I didn't like or agree to the wording.
There's no mistaking the sentiment - either you feel that both types of marriage are constitutional rights, neither of them are, or one is while the other isn't.
Well I think I've made myself clear that marriage isn't a right, it's a priviledge and, like many things, is used by the government to encourage a certain behavior. That's my sentiment without having to use one of your options.
Well, Belichick Fan, here's the language of the 14th amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
It seems to cover privileges as well as rights, wouldn't you say?
Fine, give me the priviledge to marry multiple women (or men for that matter, I guess) and then we can talk. Words can be interpreted in many ways, just like I don't think the General Welfare clause was intended for what we consider Welfare today - but that's another issue.
Mainefan, I don't think you're quoting the pertinent section of the 14th amendment. The privileges or immunities clause covers privileges and immunities of citizenship (constitutional civil rights don't always come from citizenship, as the recent Guantanamo decision showed us). That section of the 14th amendment would prevent the states, for example, from taking away your right to vote, travel freely, or or run for office. I do believe other sections of the 14th amendment ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") apply.
I think you need to sue, BelichickFan, if you feel that your right to marry multiple people IS being infringed. Seriously, I'm not being flip, I would support you in your attempt to have this invasive policy overturned.
Maybe I should. I surely don't want two wives but if I got enough attention I could write a book about my attempt and retire
You'd need standing to sue, so you'd have to find a second wife to marry... and explain it to your first wife.
Well my sister is single (not that that should matter, of course), so I could propose to her and hit the polygamy and family thing in one shot. Not sure about my wife, I'd have to attack that issue from the financial standpoint, I think
Separate names with a comma.