tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3470711408946046520.post4935815034788998561..comments2023-06-05T09:04:28.413-04:00Comments on Baxter Pancake's Baxter Pancake Blog: Marriage EqualityBaxter Pancakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14286056604432690863noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3470711408946046520.post-3867157436491918912013-03-31T10:32:26.358-04:002013-03-31T10:32:26.358-04:00Some good points, though keep in mind that you don...Some good points, though keep in mind that you don't have to be in love to get married. Quite a few people have married for money, power, or some other ulterior motive.<br /><br />Also, I guess any points/counterpoints related to the constitution may be moot, because every time I look at it I see items that our government seems to bend to their benefit, and others that are ignored entirely.<br /><br />Your use of the word "institution" reminds me of the Groucho Marx quote, "Marriage is an institution. But who wants to live in an institution?" (I think that was Groucho, though it may be misattributed.) That has nothing to do with my stance, but why not share a Groucho quote when you can?Baxter Pancakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286056604432690863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3470711408946046520.post-30688024920128550212013-03-30T10:30:47.090-04:002013-03-30T10:30:47.090-04:00Marriage is not a right precisely because it is a ...Marriage is not a right precisely because it is a legal process, requiring the sanctioning of society at large in order to exist. It's a man-made institution that's primary function (from a legal standpoint) is social engineering. That's a far cry from the negative rights philosophy of the Constitution, where the government's function is protect your individual rights, rather than bestow them. The Constitution does not grant you the right speak freely, it prohibits the government from trying to censor you.<br /><br />Same-sex marriage itself is not the 'slippery slope' part - the individual States reserve the right to define marriage as whatever they like, and the Federal government should recognize all marriages and extend federal benefits and protection. This is why it is equally wrong for the Federal government to define marriage in any way, or compel the States to overturn the will of the people when it comes to issues not related to fundamental individual rights.<br /><br />The slippery slope exists in the discussion of same-sex marriage, where the loudest arguments on both sides are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of rights and how the government is supposed to operate. The government shouldn't legislate based on 'love' any more than it should in favor of God's opinion.<br /><br />Personally, I think any couple intent on raising a family should be extended the legal benefits of marriage. Gay, straight, blood-related even, I don't care. I don't see why a couple not planning on a family should get those benefits - just because they're in love? Seems a bit unfair (dare I say discriminatory?) for all those poor saps who haven't been so lucky. In any case, that's just my opinion, and I'll vote for it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02540550765735400994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3470711408946046520.post-21493996820942931472013-03-30T00:28:10.344-04:002013-03-30T00:28:10.344-04:00I disagree. It is a rights issue. Marriage is a ...I disagree. It is a rights issue. Marriage is a legal process, meaning it involves the law, meaning it involves lawmakers (meaning the government). The government cannot deny legal rights to a certain group of people, despite what the social whims are.<br /><br />It is not a slippery slope. What would the fallout be if same-sex couples were allowed to wed? It's already legal in a handful of states, and I'm fairly certain that life has continued on as it did before in those states.Baxter Pancakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286056604432690863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3470711408946046520.post-51918730486239024372013-03-29T22:37:56.765-04:002013-03-29T22:37:56.765-04:00Everyone gay or straight IS equal under the law as...Everyone gay or straight IS equal under the law as it relates to their Constitutional rights. We all have the right to love, congregate with, have legal contracts with, and have sex with however we want.<br /><br />Marriage is a separate issue. If marriage were a right, you wouldn't need a license to get one. Marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a legal distinction given to couples & comes with multitude of legal and tax benefits, provided said couples meet certain criteria. <br /><br />So let's keep in mind when we argue the government should "legalize love", that love is NOT a criteria for marriage, and that there is no such thing as the "freedom to marry". You only have the so-called "freedom to marry" if you meet the requirements for marriage in your state.<br /><br />The criteria for marriage is not set in stone and should be decided by the people. The criteria for marriage should be a testament to the moral and societal attitudes of the people.<br /><br />Perhaps there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage - it doesn't matter. It's not a rights issue, its a social issue that is subject to the whims of the people. Democracy rules when it comes to these issues, and we should keep it that way. If you don't like it, then change minds. Don't petition the government to create rights where they don't exist - it's a slippery slope.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02540550765735400994noreply@blogger.com