Should the people of California be able to prevent homosexuals from getting married?
(71% of the GOVT 2302.8245 class thought no.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Our goal here is to have intelligent, respectful conversations about controversial topics. If someone says something with which you disagree, please either ask questions of the person speaking or state your own position, using facts, reasons, and evidence.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(104)
-
▼
May
(31)
- Freedom of the Press and XXX-Rated Movies
- Establishment of Religion
- Judges
- Iraq War
- Illegal Immigration
- HPV Vaccine
- Affirmative Action
- Money
- Japanse Research on Stem cells
- US Spending on Medical Care
- Smoking
- McCain's Mistake
- Pastor Wright
- Israel
- 2000 Election
- Getting the US out of Iraq
- Gas Prices
- Weird Science
- Diplomacy
- Marriage between Homosexuals
- Iran and Nuclear Weapons
- The US and Israel
- Digging Deeper
- Iraq War
- Health Insurance
- Death Penalty
- Illegal Immigration
- Waterboarding
- Surveillance without a Judge's Approval
- The Right to Vote
- High Gas Prices
-
▼
May
(31)
16 comments:
No, because that would be a majority infringing upon the personal liberty of a minority.
Austin C
Looking at this from a religious point of view, I think it would be good for California to be able to prevent this. This goes against the bible and would be morally wrong. From a political view I think that Calif. shouldn't be able to do this because homosexuals have a right to live like everyone else.
California should not be given any right whatsoever to hold back the marriage of two homosexuals because of their beliefs. It is not the business of any citizen in California to interfere with homosexuals lives. Everyone should be able to express their own beliefs and emotions with whomever they so choose. Many seem to think that the idea of marriage is degrading because of homosexuals, but it is already being degraded when straight people think that the idea of divorce is nothing. The separation of church and state should always be put into play no matter what people feel about their own religious views or even the views of others. In order to ban homosexual marriage, the Constitution has to ban it and it is not yet taken out or stated as banned in any state either. It is the choice of gays and lesbians to live their own lives. They will be who they are no matter what and we can't change their feelings.
in my opinion gay marriages should not be aloud.For one its is n ot morally right. It is going against god. In the bible it is man and women and thats how it should be.I believe that in the bible there are events that happen up till when god comes back and before he comes back every state will have a chance to except god in their life. In believe by passing laws saying that gay marriage is ok is just the devil working trying to stop God.
I believe that religion and the government should be two separate entities. The government's involvement in marriage shouldn't exist. Why do they care who someone else sleeps with? I personally don't. Noone should enforce their religious opinions on others, believers or not.
For some odd reason some people in my class were unclear of how HIV/AIDs is spread so here is some information from the CDC.
HIV is a fragile virus. It cannot live for very long outside the body. As a result, the virus is not transmitted through day-to-day activities such as shaking hands, hugging, or a casual kiss. You cannot become infected from a toilet seat, drinking fountain, doorknob, dishes, drinking glasses, food, or pets. You also cannot get HIV from mosquitoes.
HIV is primarily found in the blood, semen, or vaginal fluid of an infected person. HIV is transmitted in 3 main ways:
Having sex (anal, vaginal, or oral) with someone infected with HIV
Sharing needles and syringes with someone infected with HIV
Being exposed (fetus or infant) to HIV before or during birth or through breast feeding
For more information view our questions and answers on transmission.
HIV also can be transmitted through blood infected with HIV. However, since 1985, all donated blood in the United States has been tested for HIV. Therefore, the risk for HIV infection through the transfusion of blood or blood products is extremely low. The U.S. blood supply is considered among the safest in the world.
Andrew Wall
I think that the state of California should not be allowed to make marrying homosexually illegal. I don't feel that this is a topic that is really a government issue, I think it is more of a personal decision and more of a personal right and freedom that isn't necessarily a legal matter to be handled by the government.
I think that people should be able to do what makes them happy, especially if it is not harming the rights and freedoms of other people and the country as a whole.
Maybe changing the way the government deals with marriage licenses should change, maybe it should be more of a union between two people, leaving the marriage and religious aspects to those particular beliefs.
All in all I feel that it shouldn't be a government choice to decide whether or not homosexuals can marry.
I don't think the people of cali should be able to prevent homosexual from getting married. I believe it's the people's decision, and most especially it enhances the three basic rights which are life, liberty and Prosperity. It also protects the sacred triangle and lastly it avoids discrimination. Everyone should have the right to do anything that pleases them.
I used to feel that marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals couples for religious reasons. The main purpose of Marriage would be for the creation of offspring. I no longer have that viewpoint. Our society no longer views marriage to be a sacred commitment with the numerous divorces and re-marriages. Why not let homosexuals get a crack at it? They are already living as families and, in alot of cases, adopting children.
If governments continue to deny this right to gays, why not allow for civil unions. This would give them many of the rights that belong to married couples including- inheritance, joint tax filing, and health coverage for partners. That way, we would be treating them with respect. I suspect this validation would reduce dicrimination and violance against gays.
I think that the California law limiting gay marriage is not unconstitutional.
Under the Constitution, the states have most of the powers of government. This makes the nation a collection of experiments in democracy. In time, bad laws will be recognized as such and repealed through the democratic process (i.e. the representatives of the people of that state will vote to repeal the law).
Also, if a state makes a good law--one that works very well at addressing a certain issue--other states are likely to follow suit and adopt similar laws.
Since the California law does not infringe upon the sacred triangle (It does not kill people, physically restrain them from changing their location, or take their property), I think the law should stay. If it is a bad law, it will be repealed by the state legislature in its own due time.
The Supreme Court never had the power to define the meaning of the Constitution, so they shouldn't try to redefine "personal liberty" to include "personal liberties". Personal liberty only includes physical restraint of movement, and does not include freedom of personal choice.
If we think we ought to redefine any of those legal terms, such as "personal liberty", we need to do it with an amendment to the Constitution, not a Supreme Court ruling.
This is necessary because law is a very precise and specific field. Lawyers and politicians try to find loopholes through everything, so they are very specific in the wording of the laws, contracts, and other documents that they write. In order to simplify the job of writing these documents, lawyers and other political types got together a long time ago to decide upon universal definitions for certain terms. That way, they would not have to write the entire definition of the concept every time they wanted to use that word. These terms were to always have the standard, universal definition unless the document specifically stated otherwise.
(For an example that shows that there were, indeed, standard definitions for these terms, refer to Activity 1-D on page 2, and also quotations 1 and 2 immediately following Activity 1-D on the same page. Of course, there are more examples out there than just these quotations.)
The American lawyers and politicians brought this standard of terminology over from England, because most of them, if not all of them, were educated according to English schools of thought. Hence, they practiced according to the English standard.
Since the Constitution was written by the people who used the standard English legal definitions for these legal terms, we must interpret the Constitution according to the standard English legal definitions that they used when they wrote it. They didn't elaborate on the definitions in the Constitution because they used the universal definitions. Each term automatically means whatever its standard definition is, and nothing else.
(Remember that the standard English legal definition refers to the word's definition in the English legal tradition, not in the casual English language as we know it today.)
Therefore, if we want to redefine the meanings of these legal terms, we must make a specific, written exception to the standard definition by amending the Constitution accordingly.
If someone wants "personal liberty" to include personal decisions such as marrying someone of the same sex, that's how you should go about changing the meaning. As it is now, the term "personal liberty" does not include that decision, and so neither the 14th amendment nor the Due Process Clause in the 5th Amendment applies to that decision. Nor does that decision fall under the Sacred Triangle.
(That decision falls under the term "personal liberties", a term which means something entirely different from "personal liberty". "Personal liberty" is included under the Sacred Triangle. "Personal liberties" are not.)
I think that the people of California have a right to self-government, and that the Supreme Court should respect that self-government whether or not the law is right. That is not for the Supreme Court to decide. If it is bad, it will be repealed in time, if and when the majority of the Californian people (and their representatives) decide that such a change should be made. Otherwise, it is taking away their self-government.
--Quinn K.
NO i do not think that people of California should prevent homosexuals from getting married. I really don't understand why this country is so homophobic. Gay people have the same rights presented by the sacred triangle as heterosexual people. By saying that they can't get married, but heterosexuals can we are infringing on their rights to liberty. Wouldn't we be contradicting ourselves then???? After all who are we to say who can get married and who can't?
Arafath I.
If it were upto me then i would never allow marriage between Homorsexuals because marriage was originally made to be between man. I just think that is wrong its wrong for a man to marry another man. Gay marriages should not be aloud
I think the Government of California is doing the correct thing to prevent homosexual marriages to be passed. Since the beginning, God created a man and a women, not a man and a man. Since god has given us live and promises a hope in the future, we have the right to thank him in every way. And this includes following his word, the bible. According to 1Peter 1:17, mentions that God treats everyone equally, but he also has his limitations, and also has the right to put this limitations since he the creator of life. Another scripture in the bible, God mentions that he does not accept fornication and men sleeping with men, and those who do will give consequences to God in the future and not inherit God's kingdom.(1Corinthians 6:9)
No, the government should not be able to prevent gay marriage. The only
moral decisions that the government has power over are those that affect the
"sacred triangle". The government has no right to make the morals of a
majority into a law on a matter of this type. Just because I don't believe
gay marriage is morally right doesn't mean that my opinion is more important
than those of an opposite viewpoint. Basically, this is a matter that
cannot be decided upon by a majority vote. The government should stay out
of it.
Kevin Vandersall
I don't think California should be able to prevent homosexuals from getting married. Marriage is a personal issue and the government shouldn't have anything to do with who you sleep with/get married to. Either way people can still get "married" with common law - so why can't it just become legal?
Sarah M.
I don't think that California should have the right to ban homosexual marriages. However I do not believe that individual states should be allowed to choose their own side on this issue. When you have states deciding, their is a segregation going on. By only allowing homosexual marriage in a few or half the state will force those people, whom wish for the marriage to each other would only be allowed in those states therefore not recognized by the other state, moved to one of those states so they could live the lifestyle they choose. I think it should be a nationwide decision to either ban or approve homosexual marriage so there is no problems with the issue, to final lay it to rest.
Post a Comment