cigars

Constitutionally speaking, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in numerous landmark cases, is very much a fundamental right. That said, gay marriage has consistently not been included in the court’s definition of marriage, though admittedly on fairly shaky logic.

Another false tidbit that is parroted way too frequently in these comments: the debate really isn’t about forcing religious institutions to endorse gay marriages. The debate is about the ability of a same-sex couple to walk into city hall, get a marriage certificate, and be married by a justice of the peace. All the paranoia about the effect on religious institutions is just unnecessary, inflammatory and, well, misplaced. “Marriage” is both a legal status with the state and a religious institution, which many on this board seem to conveniently forget when they need to justify their positions.

Many people get married because they want to have children. Many don’t. Many get married knowing they are infertile, or knowing that they never plan to have children. Society grants these heterosexual couples a marriage because it is a fundamental right, as clearly established in Supreme Court jurisprudence (I’ll spare you the explanation of strict scrutiny – you ought to be able to look that up yourselves), and the ability to marry, legalistically speaking, outweighs whatever interest the state has in ensuring a steady flow of babies into the population (something that, realistically, we have no need to be concerned about, given current population rates – we ain’t even close to extinct, nor endangered, fellas).

I have yet to hear even a minimally convincing argument against gay civil marriage (yes, I said civil marriage, not the misleading civil union). The slippery slope argument is unavailing, unless you think legislators are entirely incapable of drafting legislation with requisite restrictions. Just because you allow two adult males to marry at civil hall does NOT mean that you can’t simultaneously prevent another adult male marrying a llama, or five adult women marrying a minor boy and his pet turtle. That’s a desperate argument, and it has no place in the debate. Slopes are never that slippery, because any possible wiggle room is drafted out of the law before it’s enacted. That’s what makes laws so hard to read, remember? The legalese?

Given the state of marriage and divorce in this country, people should spend more time worrying about their own relationships and the glass houses they’re living in before they throw stones.

http://huron2.aaps.k12.mi.us/smitha/HUM/PDF/rome-decline.pdf

Facts are fun to learn from and to see where we are headed towards as a nation. Thanks to the homosexuals and media drowning out morals that work and keep us blessed as a nation.