News-Record.com

Interesting points about the name calling and the bases of arguments against this proposed amendment.

I was the first to comment after Gate's original post on this subject, but I have stayed on the sidlines since. Frankly, I still have not arrived at a firm position on the topic of gay marriages, so I would value a clear-headed debate on the topic.

I hope you will consider a follow up post that will lead to a reasoned debate with a future post.

Good points. I personally agree that the rhetoric from both ends of the political spectrum has gotten out of hand. There seems to be less and less room for civil discussion.

Thank you for reading. Please consider a link to my site. I need to add yours.

My complaint isn't one of discrimination or equal protection. I just don't think government should be involved in a religious matter.

You asked a Cartesian question about concerns regarding the proposed amendment: Question: Is the complaint about a proposed amendment that it's discriminatory or that it denies equal protection under the law?

There are other reasons besides those two.
1. I don't trust ANY legislators to go messing around with my Constitution. It's fine the way it is and only a huge, critical or societal-changing decision should be considered for an amendment.

2. It's not about marriage. It's about imposing religious views through the Constitution, which is exactly what the founders were trying (their best) to prevent.

We get all bound up in vituperative hyperbole about gay v straight and our religious or "moral" (totally undefinable these days) views. This really has *nothing* to with either. It's all about a government (through the Constitution) intrusion on inalienable rights, life, liberty and personal (I guess you can't say "private" anymore) happiness.

As for me, I'm also of the opinion that the state has no business getting into this on a constitutional level. I see nothing positive coming from either the debate nor the outcome of any such vote. It is a needlessly divisive issue that some feel should be dealt with for some motivation other than the rule of law I believe.

I know of too many long-time-committed gay couples to even suggest that they should not be granted the same rights and benefits that my Jinni and I enjoy through benefit of our 'legal' marriage. My marriage, nor the future unions entered into by my children, is not threatened, in any way, by those families - as a matter of fact - our lives are richer for their presence in our lives.

Those gay couples are monogamous, responsible, "family-valued", tax paying, loving, involved, church-going... on and on and on.

At this point in my children's lives, I have no way of knowing which way their sex lives will ultimately swing. But if it turns out that any of them are homosexual, I wish for them every benefit and happiness that Jinni and I currently enjoy because we happen to be heterosexual.

If you have children, consider your position on this carefully. You may get what you wish for and eventually regret it.

Relegating "marriage" to religious institutions and making civil unions available to all consenting adults is the only way this country can comply fully with both the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Also, the provision in Article VI, Section 8 of the state constitution clearly violates the federal ban on religious tests for public office, and as soon as someone whom that provision affects chooses to make a federal case out of it, the Supreme Court, state or federal, will scrap it.

On discrimination. The examples you cite are ones where it was determined that there is a compelling state interest in exercising "discrimination" (although I'm not sure about the justification for a belief in an almighty God). Direct question, Mr. Clark: What is the compelling state interest in denying the rights confered upon couples by marriage to gay couples?

On equal protection. Wow! I'm impressed. A very clever little word game -- the kind one usually finds when a meaningful argument is lacking and the kind that the LSAT uses to see if one can find logic flaws in seemingly logical propositions. But let's keep playing in your sandbox:

Doesn't every person have the same right to marry as every other person? Consider John and Sue. John may be gay and Sue straight, but our law prohibits one from marrying Jake. Jake may not want to marry Sue. Maybe he'd rather marry John. The law says he can't. The law is treating John and Jake differently from Sue. See? You can shape those word games to any end, so why not avoid them and address the issues at hand?

You've looked at some of the reasons for supporting same-sex unions and offered easily defeated rebutals; can you make an assertive argument in favor of your position?

Welcome to blogging, Doug. Somehow I knew you'd eventually get to writing one of these things.

The answer to your initial question may lie in the nature of the characteristic being used to discriminate. Certainly, laws discriminate. But when they begin to discriminate based upon peoples' immutable characteristics, then I think we've got a problem.

I believe most thinking people believe that the government and public accomodations shouldn't discriminate against people based upon an accident of birth. Handicap, race, sex, nationality - all are no-nos. Age? Well, you can discriminate against the young in certain activities because they will eventually age out of it. But if you discriminate against the old just for being old, that's not something they can change.

Without getting into "protected classes" and all that (which Scalia and the like want to read as "anyone protected at the time the Constitution was written"), can't one find it just fundamentally unfair to say to Paul that he can't enjoy the same state and private benefits in his relationship with Tom as Mike is accorded in his relationship with Sally? Does it make any difference if Paul can't help that he's attracted to and in love with Tom? Is sexuality immutable? Behavior isn't, but most people I know who are gay will tell you that their identity goes way beyond their sexual practices.

If the distinction boils down to protecting a specific religious ideal of marriage, then, Constitutionally, I think you have to admit that we have a problem here.

If it comes down to the equitable administration of State sanction and benefits, then different questions arise.

In any event - interesting issue. I wish we could discuss it without accusing each other of either being heathens or haters. I'm neither, I think.

Thanks, all, for thoughtful responses. John, great to hear from you. Obviously, a lawyer with experience in journalism is going to offer some brilliant insights stated very succinctly. I find some strong reasoning on both sides of this issue, and nothing so far that clinches the case either way. It may be, eventually, that Rusty and Lex will be proven right and government will decide it no longer should recognize marriage at all in the traditional sense.