SCOTUS to decide the legality of “Gay Marriage”

Gold Wedding RingsToday the Supreme Court of the Unites States (SCOTUS) began proceedings in the case to overturn the ban on legalized “gay marriages” in the state of California.  Although it will be months before the ruling is revealed, many have already begun speculating that the justices will rule in favor of “gay marriage” proponents.  As of now “gay marriage” is illegal in 40 states and furthermore is not recognized by the federal government.

Last year, President Obama changed his opinion on the matter after experiencing an “evolution.”  I’ll let you decide if his “evolution” was based on low polling numbers or if he truly had a “change of heart.”  The same could be said for Senator Rob Portman’s decision to now support the cause because his son is gay.  I don’t know if I really believe most of these politicians on this issue.  They aren’t dumb (contrary to public opinion).  They know when the political climate is changing and last year’s election was quite indicative that groups that feel ignored will unify and affect the outcome of an election. 

Last September I shared my views on gay marriage.  You might ask why you can trust my opinion on the matter.  First, I am not a politician.  I’m also not famous.  I have nothing to gain or lose from what I say.  Not that that would change my opinion anyway.  I can be stubborn sometimes.

I have a problem with people who automatically think one is a bigot or a homophobe because they are against “gay marriage.”  I don’t think I am either of those two labels.  My opinion on the matter is somewhat complicated.  Technically I am against “gay marriage.”  However, and this is the most important part, I am for EQUAL RIGHTS.  The fact that the Supreme Court even has to rule on this issue is rather ludicrous.  How can you tell a couple they aren’t warranted the same benefits (financial, legal, etc.) because of their sexual orientation?  How can that possibly be constitutional?

It is ridiculous that our federal government does not recognize same-sex couples.  Funny how they recognize them when it comes to collecting taxes.  I’ve always advocated civil unions in which same-sex couples get EXACTLY the same the benefits as married, heterosexual couples.  Anything otherwise is unconstitutional.

I’ve debated this issue quite a bit.  Many people will tell me that my religious beliefs should not be embroidered with federal or state law.  Marriage is derived from a religious union; thus creating my conundrum over legalizing “gay marriage.”  My issue is the phrase “gay marriage.”  I also have a problem with the federal or state government forcing a religious institution to perform a ceremony which contradicts the doctrines of their respective religions.  Religious institutions should not be penalized for refusing to perform “gay marriages.”  Otherwise I think that would be an infringement on their religious freedom.  And that would be unconstitutional.

I think there are two solutions.

  1. One solution is to call same-sex unions “civil unions” and warrant the EXACT same benefits shared by their heterosexual counterparts.
  2. Recognize all marriages or same-sex unions as “civil unions” (at least from a state and federal perspective).

Regardless of my opinion I think that in the near future, “gay marriage” will be legal throughout the country.  I think it is kind of dumb that a gay couple has to drive to another state to gain equal benefits.

What do you think?

Email: realtalkdebate2012@gmail.com

Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About adrakontaidis

A conservative who doesn't pander to the GOP.

13 responses to “SCOTUS to decide the legality of “Gay Marriage””

  1. JF Owen says :

    For many years, I have advocated for your option 2. I believe that the legal, contractual obligations between two individuals who want to share their lives should be defined and enforced by the government and considered civil unions. If they want the spiritual and religious aspects of a “marriage” as defined by a church, that’s fine but it should be optional and separate.

    We already have a long standing implementation of this concept. The Catholic church defines marriage differently from any state government in that they don’t recognize the validity of a marriage unless it is performed by a priest or the validity of divorce under any circumstances. Society has made that work for centuries. I see no reason why that separation of responsibility and control should be unworkable on a larger framework.

    If we take the word “marriage” out of the civil definition, then the sex of the partners is irrelevant. Let the church elders argue over the definition of marriage and deal with their parishioners who disagree with the definition and rules they provide.

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      Thanks for the comment!

      I agree that Option 2 would be the best option. I find the fact that the Supreme Court has to acknowledge that everyone is entitled to equal rights rather ludicrous. Removing the word marriage from legal obligations would solve the issue.

  2. reasoningpolitics says :

    I think your #2 option is the perfect way for those who feel ‘marriage’ is a religious bond between a man and a woman. If you get government out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether and get it into the ‘civil unions’ for all, the problems just evaporate.

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      Definitely think the second option is the best and most logical to stop this bickering. Many people think the DODA and Prop 8 will be overturned. If gay marriage is deemed legal, it really doesn’t affect my life. I just want equal rights for all American citizens.

      Thanks for the comment! Glad to see you are back 🙂

  3. Kamil Zawadzki says :

    I think Option 2 would at least theoretically be a good compromise. Recognize equality in the eyes of the law, government, taxes, etc. And leave the religious ceremony up to the various congregations (and I know, if you’re religious, you want your loving union to be blessed by your own priest/pastor but if that’s not possible because of their policy, gay couples can have the “big white wedding” at another church).

    But language, whether it’s superficial or not, causes problems even with this level-headed solution. After all, it’s much easier and just, well, common-use, to say “I’m married,” instead of “I’m in a civil union.” The latter doesn’t even have a verb form unless you go “unified civilly” or something clunky and weird like that.

    It’s going to be hard to sell to heterosexual couples who might feel that calling their relationships “civil union” would be a downgrade from “marriage.” Either way, you’re going to be seen as elevating someone (EVERYONE is “Married”) or knocking someone down a peg (EVERYONE is in a “Civil Union”) to equalize the status.
    Even if it wouldn’t actually take any rights or benefits away from them, the nomenclature here matters.
    That’s also why advocates of “gay marriage” are a) not satisfied with being stuck with “civil union” status on principle (even though as they picket the Supreme Court and legal bodies, they ARE NOT chanting outside churches, at least not that I’ve heard of) and b) they insist that they don’t want “gay marriage” – they just want “marriage,” period, and call their cause “marriage equality.” They don’t want to get “gay married,” they say. They just want to get married. And they speak less of it being church recognition and more of it being government recognition. Which is in line with your thoughts here except for the use of the term “marriage.”

    Unless there’s some way to mount an effective PR campaign that gets people en masse to NOT consider “civil union” to be a downgraded, second-class form of “marriage,” I’m not sure how we can decouple the institution of marriage from secular, legal matters – it has always had, in practice, as many secular bindings as it does religious.
    For centuries, if you look at just Christian Europe alone and totally ignore the practices in other cultures and communities, the religious ceremony of marriage was just window dressing – after evolving from local arranged marriages exchanging property and dowry, the royal lines of Europe used marriage to expand or consolidate their control over large tracts of land. The Papacy, up until the Reformation, still held sway so papal blessing was used to validate various arrangements.
    (Meanwhile, many a king and queen slept around and some were even widely-rumored to have homosexual relations of their own, because faith was incidental and love did not play a big role in most of the marriages – until modern photography and modern media coverage proliferated, I honestly can’t say I’ve ever seen a painting depicting a ruling royal couple together. The only one I can think of is Napoleon Bonaparte’s coronation as Emperor of France, and even in that one, Napoleon has the Pope present but snatches the regalia from him and crowns himself and his wife Josephine in what was then a MAJOR rebuke to religious domination over royal power.)

    Hell, Poland’s first documented ruler converted in 966 as a strategic decision to nullify the validity of invasions from the Germans in the Holy Roman Empire who until then could have papal support in claiming they simply wanted to convert the pagans to the east and not just secure more land for themselves. And then in the 13th century, Poland arranged a marriage with the ruler of then-massive Lithuania, in which he converted to Catholicism and began purging the pagan elements of his domain, to more effectively counter the Teutonic Order that nested in Prussia.

    Yet for these same centuries, in part because the royals did hold religious ceremony to secure and validate their power, people have been conditioned to treat “marriage” as a religious institution. At best, it’s a mixture of religious and secular institutions, and practiced often quite cynically.
    (And, as I had mentioned in a post a few months back, what of atheists who marry and still call themselves a married couple? After all, to them, the word, concept and institution has no religious connotation whatsoever.)

    A linguistic shift away from using the words “marriage,” “marry” and “marriage” in anything but a religious context could well take decades of careful conditioning. That’s just too long for same-sex couples to wait for heterosexual partners to finally decide they’re fine being equal and having the same status on legal documents. That they’ve waited this long already for that recognition is ludicrous, but to wait even longer just for people to get used to a new word or new definition would add insult to injury.
    I just don’t know what other way there is.

  4. Kamil Zawadzki says :

    Here’s a link with a whole list of polls taken in the past few months and even going back a couple of years about this issue.
    http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
    The site seems basic but the polls, at least most recent ones, are legit.
    But the one question I think needs to be asked to follow up on the “civil union/partnership” vs. “marriage” one is “Would you be okay with official recognition of heterosexual couples as ‘civil unions/partners’ AS OPPOSED TO ‘married’?”

    After all, if you would like the government to just call everyone a “civil union,” as you yourself do, then okay.
    But if you as a straight person would be offended if your straight relationship was re-classified as a “civil union” rather than a “marriage,” then you cannot in any good conscience expect to give same-sex couples that label and expect them to be bursting with joy and gratitude. It’s like agreeing to go on a trip with someone, but the whole way through, you seat yourself in first class and just leave them sitting alone in coach and then act shocked when they’re not too thrilled with your behavior.

    I know personally, if I was homosexual and in a relationship wanting to get married and someone else came up to me and said “you know, you’re not REALLY married because I don’t believe marriage unless it’s approved by religious ceremony,” I’d just respond with “well, sorry you feel that way and that sucks, but that’s also YOUR problem, not mine” and walk away confident in my sassy ‘fuck you, too’ comeback.
    Whether or not they’re ACTUALLY hateful bigots would honestly not cross my mind at that point, because, hey, they just insinuated my relationship is somehow less-than.
    And who’s to say that person’s concept of marriage is somehow better or superior to mine, or vice-versa? That’s why an outright ban on “gay marriages” should not be upheld by the Court because it is by default a blanket prohibition – which, as far as religious freedoms go, again, there are congregations that perform same-sex marriage ceremonies so doesn’t a ban on these inhibit those groups’ freedom? (And, again, the advocates are gathering at legal government institutions, not churches, to protest – because religion is not the issue here.)

    Quite frankly, for me, I could potentially be in that situation even as a heterosexual, because if it were up to me and only me without asking what the soon-to-be wife wants, I could do without the mass on my wedding day and just have a small civil ceremony followed by a big ol’ party in the evening. Yet I’d still call myself “married” in daily conversation, on my tax forms AND when making it Facebook-official :p

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      Sorry for the lapse in time before I could respond to your comment. As usual I’m glad I’ve inspired you to write more than I did for my entire post lol 🙂

      Yes, I did read everything you wrote. I always read all the comments.

      You make some good points.

      Regardless of what I think I’m confident at the least the DODA will be struck down. Eventually gay marriage will be legal across all the states.

  5. mariampera says :

    You, stubborn? Noooo. ❤

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: