Why banning Gay marriage IS unconstitutional

[Hjornis]

To many big words for me as English is not my first langue (who would have guessed )
Anyway the US bases much of its laws on the court system, and their interpretation is given much more leverage then in my country (guess that is why you reffer to a court rulling). My question is simpe and it is regarding the written law, not precedent created by the courts: Does the law in any state say (in writing): "A man is not allowed to marry another man"?

No, but some states say "Marriage is only one man and one woman."

Does this mean that, no states have ever banned gay marrege, in the same way that no law have ever prohibited people without feet to wear shoes, and my initial statment about the OP being wrong is now right? Since there have never been a ban against gay marrage only state regulations upon what a marrage is?

[Deus Malum]

No, but some states say "Marriage is only one man and one woman."

Does this mean that, no states have ever banned gay marrege, in the same way that no law have ever prohibited people without feet to wear shoes, and my initial statment about the OP being wrong is now right? Since there have never been a ban against gay marrage only state regulations upon what a marrage is?

Check my reply to your post. It's got a map with all the information on state-by-state marriage status.

[Farnhamia]

No, but some states say "Marriage is only one man and one woman."

Does this mean that, no states have ever banned gay marrege, in the same way that no law have ever prohibited people without feet to wear shoes, and my initial statment about the OP being wrong is now right? Since there have never been a ban against gay marrage only state regulations upon what a marrage is?

You mean, has any state ever said, specifically, "No gay people can get married"? I don't think so. They usually do what I said, restricting marriage to just a man and a woman.

[Tekania]

No, but some states say "Marriage is only one man and one woman."

Does this mean that, no states have ever banned gay marrege, in the same way that no law have ever prohibited people without feet to wear shoes, and my initial statment about the OP being wrong is now right? Since there have never been a ban against gay marrage only state regulations upon what a marrage is?

When as a response to same-sex marriage rights a state specifically codifies or enacts a constitutional amendment to defined marriage to only one man / one women, that is actually "banning same sex marriage" for all intents and purposes. Claiming otherwise is merely arguing semantics. If one passes a law limiting sidewalks to only have foot transport, bikes, tricycles, wagons and rollerscates in response to scateboarders... one is banning scateboarders whether specifically mentioning it or not. We're really only concerned with the practical outworking of the law.

[Res Publican]

You know, I'm really trying, but can't seem to find one and I sold that history book back to the college for a pittance a long time ago.

Feel free to discard my statement, unless someone can find a source confirming it.

Well in the 1800's in America common-law marriage came into practice; that type of marriage required that the 'promise' be witnessed by a town official.
Before that, though, in England 1753 marriage became a government regulated institution and most countries followed suit.

After the formation of the Union in America though, marriage and divorce both had to have concrete legal requirements and definitions which have been ever-evolving in the country. Like the ban on polygamy and then the allowing of no-fault divorce, all were government regulated mandates to the laws pertaining to marriage and every time a there was a church or two up-in arms about it. The church complaining about the governments involvment in marriage is nothing new but the fact is that the government has always been involved in marriage.

It appears your "always" begins approximately in 1753.
The church has been around a bit longer...

[Farnhamia]

Well in the 1800's in America common-law marriage came into practice; that type of marriage required that the 'promise' be witnessed by a town official.
Before that, though, in England 1753 marriage became a government regulated institution and most countries followed suit.

After the formation of the Union in America though, marriage and divorce both had to have concrete legal requirements and definitions which have been ever-evolving in the country. Like the ban on polygamy and then the allowing of no-fault divorce, all were government regulated mandates to the laws pertaining to marriage and every time a there was a church or two up-in arms about it. The church complaining about the governments involvment in marriage is nothing new but the fact is that the government has always been involved in marriage.

It appears your "always" begins approximately in 1753.
The church has been around a bit longer...

And marriage longer than that.

[Res Publican]

I can't be responsible for your perceptions.

Governments and the non-religious can call it whatever they like, but when governments grant Rights and privileges based on "marriage" and not "civil union," they promote ambiguity, not acceptance.

To suppose that calling it "marriage" will suddenly garner equal acceptance in society just isn't the case. If we take "marriage" out of the equation, then we remove the objection of the religious, we remove the argument of the "separation" folks, and we don't create a separate-but-equal situation between the church-married and civilly-"married."

Again, social equality has nothing to do with acceptance...You want a list of organizations/groups of the public that don't accept any given aspect of social equality? Simple fact is that social equality only requires tolerance by law, not acceptance. You don’t need to accept homosexuality or same-sex marriage as an individual or a group but you do need to tolerate it.

Tolerate it? Are you reading something that I'm not writing?

I can't be MORE clear. I tolerate and promote marriages, same-sex or not, granted by the Church. I tolerate and promote civil unions, same-sex or not, granted by the Government. I do NOT agree with the government or the church meddling in the affairs of the other.

[Hjornis]

Does this mean that, no states have ever banned gay marrege, in the same way that no law have ever prohibited people without feet to wear shoes, and my initial statment about the OP being wrong is now right? Since there have never been a ban against gay marrage only state regulations upon what a marrage is?

Check my reply to your post. It's got a map with all the information on state-by-state marriage status.

I did. But you must see my first post to understand what I am talking about
my point is that a guy (lets say he lives in Texas) without feet cant use shoes, but that does not mean that Texas have baned people without feet to use shoes. But they have defined shoes as "something you use on your feet".
In the same way a gay who lives in texas can not marry another guy, not becouse Texas have banned same sex marrage, but becouse they have defined marrage as "something that happends between a man and a woman"

To use different words. Sex with a animal have been banned (you go to prison if you do it)
To marry a animal have not been banned (there is just no way to do it)
once that have been said. I think they should reconsider what a legaly marrige is. In my opinion marrage is two people who chooes to live together to death takes them apart. And I belive they should be able to get legaly married.


edit

Claiming otherwise is merely arguing semantics.

I agree 100% but semantics is important when dealing with laws. I would guess that the laws in US states "only cars, truks and motorcykles are aloved on the highway" It does not say "the highway is a place where cars, trucks and motocykles travel"

We're really only concerned with the practical outworking of the law.

Who are "we"? if you mean NSG I count myself as one of them and I care for the wording
and if you count "we" as the gay comunity, well I count myself as one of them also

[Iuuvic]

Well in the 1800's in America common-law marriage came into practice; that type of marriage required that the 'promise' be witnessed by a town official.
Before that, though, in England 1753 marriage became a government regulated institution and most countries followed suit.

After the formation of the Union in America though, marriage and divorce both had to have concrete legal requirements and definitions which have been ever-evolving in the country. Like the ban on polygamy and then the allowing of no-fault divorce, all were government regulated mandates to the laws pertaining to marriage and every time a there was a church or two up-in arms about it. The church complaining about the governments involvment in marriage is nothing new but the fact is that the government has always been involved in marriage.

It appears your "always" begins approximately in 1753.
The church has been around a bit longer...

No, marriage became a government institution in England in 1753, lawful regulation of marriage goes back as far as marriage does.

[Yahkima]

Well in the 1800's in America common-law marriage came into practice; that type of marriage required that the 'promise' be witnessed by a town official.
Before that, though, in England 1753 marriage became a government regulated institution and most countries followed suit.

After the formation of the Union in America though, marriage and divorce both had to have concrete legal requirements and definitions which have been ever-evolving in the country. Like the ban on polygamy and then the allowing of no-fault divorce, all were government regulated mandates to the laws pertaining to marriage and every time a there was a church or two up-in arms about it. The church complaining about the governments involvment in marriage is nothing new but the fact is that the government has always been involved in marriage.

It appears your "always" begins approximately in 1753.
The church has been around a bit longer...

I did specify in the United States, which did not exist before 1776 at the earliest, and I'm positive I didn't use the word 'always.'

But of course you know that marriage predates the Church... so I'm not sure what you're driving at.

[1000 Cats]

OK you provoke me. How about marriage with adult and the infant. It happens in some countries.

Source.

They can't even talk, of course they can't give informed consent! Even children are more capable of giving informed consent. You could argue that an especially intelligent child can understand the consequences of having sex and, you know, could actually talk about it. Animals don't even have that going for them. They barely understand simple commands most of the time.

Vocal consent is not required for consent. If I showed my desire for my girlfriend, and she responded not vocally, but by dragging me to the bedroom for a few hours, that's consent. In a sense, the same can work for an animal. I'm no expert on this, which is why I originally said, a number of pages back, I know someone why can explain how animals can give consent.

Thanks for the summons.

consent

[Bellus Mortifera]

Do unto others what you want others to do to you~ The law must apply to all if not, none at all.

[Iuuvic]

Again, social equality has nothing to do with acceptance...You want a list of organizations/groups of the public that don't accept any given aspect of social equality? Simple fact is that social equality only requires tolerance by law, not acceptance. You don’t need to accept homosexuality or same-sex marriage as an individual or a group but you do need to tolerate it.

Tolerate it? Are you reading something that I'm not writing?

I can't be MORE clear. I tolerate and promote marriages, same-sex or not, granted by the Church. I tolerate and promote civil unions, same-sex or not, granted by the Government. I do NOT agree with the government or the church meddling in the affairs of the other.

Again, the government is not restricting or regulating provision of church services, because of that your argument makes no sense. The government is enhancing government and social services; which, according to the very definition of societal equality, must be given equal accesses to.

Society can call these services whatever we damn well please and the church has no basis for claiming total ownership over the use of the word 'marriage.' The word does not belong to the 'church' it never has and never will; and certainly the word has more then just its church supported definition, there is a distinct secular definition in society regarding the word marriage.

I mean, it’s really that simple and it’s also undeniable which is why (I assume) you continue to ignore it.

[Res Publican]

It appears your "always" begins approximately in 1753.
The church has been around a bit longer...

And marriage longer than that.

Show me your evidence.

[Farnhamia]

And marriage longer than that.

Show me your evidence.

Julius Caesar's marriages:

First marriage to Cornelia Cinnilla, from 83 BC until her death in childbirth in 69 or 68 BC
Second marriage to Pompeia, from 67 BC until he divorced her around 61 BC
Third marriage to Calpurnia Pisonis, from 59 BC until Caesar's death

I'm pretty sure Caesar was not married by "the church."

[Ovisterra]

Show me your evidence.

Julius Caesar's marriages:

First marriage to Cornelia Cinnilla, from 83 BC until her death in childbirth in 69 or 68 BC
Second marriage to Pompeia, from 67 BC until he divorced her around 61 BC
Third marriage to Calpurnia Pisonis, from 59 BC until Caesar's death

I'm pretty sure Caesar was not married by "the church."

Sourcey source, in case doubt might arise.

[Ceannairceach]

And marriage longer than that.

Show me your evidence.

I'm sorry, but did you just demand evidence for the fact that marriages predate the Christian religion?

Are you shitting me?

[Deus Malum]

Show me your evidence.

Julius Caesar's marriages:

First marriage to Cornelia Cinnilla, from 83 BC until her death in childbirth in 69 or 68 BC
Second marriage to Pompeia, from 67 BC until he divorced her around 61 BC
Third marriage to Calpurnia Pisonis, from 59 BC until Caesar's death

I'm pretty sure Caesar was not married by "the church."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_law#Marriage

Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be husband and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between their relatives—the groom's father providing the bride-price, which, with other gifts, the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's father. This bride-price was usually then handed over by her father to the bride upon her marriage, and so returned into the bridegroom's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion of the family's inheritance as a daughter.

The bride-price varied greatly, according to the status of the parties, but surpassed the price of a slave. The Code stipulated that if the father did not give the suitor his daughter after accepting the suitor's gifts, he must return the gifts. The bride-price had to be returned even if the father reneged on the marriage contract because of slander of the suitor on the part of the suitor's friend, and the Code stipulated that the slanderer should not marry the girl (and thus would not profit from his slander). Conversely, if a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents.

The dowry might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it if it had.

The marriage ceremony included joining hands and the bridegroom uttering a formula of acceptance, such as, "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." The ceremony must be performed by a freeman.

The marriage contract—without which, the Code ruled that the woman was no wife—usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many other conditions might also be inserted: such as that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law or to a first wife.

The married couple formed a single unit in terms of external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence the Code allowed a proviso to be inserted in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for her husband's pre-nuptial debts; but stipulated that then he was not responsible for her pre-nuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favorite child; but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married, she always remained a member of her father's house—she is rarely named wife of A, but usually daughter of B, or mother of C.

Code of Hammurabi, secular code of law, ~1700BCE, one of the oldest writings we have.

[Leepaidamba]

I see Res Publican not responding to me. Have I "won?

[Samuraikoku]

I see Res Publican not responding to me. Have I "won?

At the time of this post, they're offline. May have escaped.

[Farnhamia]

Julius Caesar's marriages:

First marriage to Cornelia Cinnilla, from 83 BC until her death in childbirth in 69 or 68 BC
Second marriage to Pompeia, from 67 BC until he divorced her around 61 BC
Third marriage to Calpurnia Pisonis, from 59 BC until Caesar's death

I'm pretty sure Caesar was not married by "the church."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_law#Marriage

Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be husband and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between their relatives—the groom's father providing the bride-price, which, with other gifts, the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's father. This bride-price was usually then handed over by her father to the bride upon her marriage, and so returned into the bridegroom's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion of the family's inheritance as a daughter.

The bride-price varied greatly, according to the status of the parties, but surpassed the price of a slave. The Code stipulated that if the father did not give the suitor his daughter after accepting the suitor's gifts, he must return the gifts. The bride-price had to be returned even if the father reneged on the marriage contract because of slander of the suitor on the part of the suitor's friend, and the Code stipulated that the slanderer should not marry the girl (and thus would not profit from his slander). Conversely, if a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents.

The dowry might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it if it had.

The marriage ceremony included joining hands and the bridegroom uttering a formula of acceptance, such as, "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." The ceremony must be performed by a freeman.

The marriage contract—without which, the Code ruled that the woman was no wife—usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many other conditions might also be inserted: such as that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law or to a first wife.

The married couple formed a single unit in terms of external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence the Code allowed a proviso to be inserted in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for her husband's pre-nuptial debts; but stipulated that then he was not responsible for her pre-nuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favorite child; but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married, she always remained a member of her father's house—she is rarely named wife of A, but usually daughter of B, or mother of C.

Code of Hammurabi, secular code of law, ~1700BCE, one of the oldest writings we have.

I have grocery lists older than that but yeah, good point. *shrug* Akkadians, they needed laws.

[Tekania]

I can't be MORE clear. I tolerate and promote marriages, same-sex or not, granted by the Church. I tolerate and promote civil unions, same-sex or not, granted by the Government. I do NOT agree with the government or the church meddling in the affairs of the other.

Civil marriage doesn't meddle in church affairs.

[Farnhamia]

I can't be MORE clear. I tolerate and promote marriages, same-sex or not, granted by the Church. I tolerate and promote civil unions, same-sex or not, granted by the Government. I do NOT agree with the government or the church meddling in the affairs of the other.

Civil marriage doesn't meddle in church affairs.

We're good then, I take it?

[Deus Malum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_law#Marriage

Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be husband and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between their relatives—the groom's father providing the bride-price, which, with other gifts, the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's father. This bride-price was usually then handed over by her father to the bride upon her marriage, and so returned into the bridegroom's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion of the family's inheritance as a daughter.

The bride-price varied greatly, according to the status of the parties, but surpassed the price of a slave. The Code stipulated that if the father did not give the suitor his daughter after accepting the suitor's gifts, he must return the gifts. The bride-price had to be returned even if the father reneged on the marriage contract because of slander of the suitor on the part of the suitor's friend, and the Code stipulated that the slanderer should not marry the girl (and thus would not profit from his slander). Conversely, if a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents.

The dowry might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it if it had.

The marriage ceremony included joining hands and the bridegroom uttering a formula of acceptance, such as, "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." The ceremony must be performed by a freeman.

The marriage contract—without which, the Code ruled that the woman was no wife—usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many other conditions might also be inserted: such as that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law or to a first wife.

The married couple formed a single unit in terms of external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence the Code allowed a proviso to be inserted in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for her husband's pre-nuptial debts; but stipulated that then he was not responsible for her pre-nuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favorite child; but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married, she always remained a member of her father's house—she is rarely named wife of A, but usually daughter of B, or mother of C.

Code of Hammurabi, secular code of law, ~1700BCE, one of the oldest writings we have.

I have grocery lists older than that but yeah, good point. *shrug* Akkadians, they needed laws.

That was mainly to point out that one of the oldest codifications of marriage law in the world that we know of was of a purely secular nature.

[Tekania]

Civil marriage doesn't meddle in church affairs.

We're good then, I take it?

As far as I know.

I'm as confused as you are really as to what is such the big issue with opening the definition of civil marriage to include same-sex couples as applicable. One would think it would be a relatively simple concept.