[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy] What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defence

The problem with passing gay marriage is where do you stop? What is next? So a man decides I wanna marry my dog? Or a woman decides I wanna marry my son? This could lead to the downfall of our country in many different areas not just morally. Liberals bring up the argument "Well the country is changing, perhaps we should change the Constitution?" What would stop them from eventually getting rid of the Constitution as a whole?

 

These are all great points that have previously been ignored. If one consenting adult marries another consenting adult, what's to prevent me from marrying a lamp? Logically, there's no difference between the two, so this is a perfectly valid point.

 

Your slippery slope arguments are absurd and not particularly relevant. Marriage, in legal terms, is a contract. Children and dogs cannot contract. Therefore children and dogs cannot be parties to a marriage contract. See how easy that was?

As for the Constitution, this is also irrelevant. Allowing same sex marriage would require no change to the Constitution. The Constitution does not define marriage which makes it an issue of state law. All that would need to change are state statutes. It is the group wanting to ensure that same sex marriage is not legal are the ones wanting a Constitutional amendment.

 

You really don't see the difference between 2 consenting adults getting married or an adult and a child/dog?

 

But this is a matter of freedom of expression. If someone feels that they want to marry a dog and the government denies it, they can take it all the way to the SCOTUS and say its my right as a citizen to express myself freely.

Regarding the Constitution point I brought up, do you believe gay marriage should be legal in the whole country or should we just let the states vote on it?

 

Your Constitutional argument about freedom of expression is amusing, but wrong. The act of getting married is not free speech.

Marriage has always been reserved for the states, and that should not change. If Texas does not want to allow same sex marriage, I disagree with that stance, but it should be left to the states. One exception though. If a same sex couple gets married in Washington state, where it is legal, and they then move to Texas, I think Texas is required to recognize that marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

 

But the dog is unable to say whether he wants to get married or not. Which is why 2 consenting adults deciding to get married is very different from somebody wanting to marry a dog.

 

I see what your getting at, but what would stop someone from marrying their son or sister? I feel like you understand my point, but your just nitpicking it to seem like your knowledgeable.

 

Your right, marriage is not free speech its freedom of expression like I said. Why do you insist on contradicting yourself?

I agree with states voting on gay marriage. It is a great way of solving this issue, in my opinion.

If you believe in using Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution for gay marriage, then someone will bring up the argument of "Why not just make it federal law that gay marriage be legal?" So in that case, your solution is invalid.

 

You should probably read the Constitution. Show me where the is a "freedom of expression" outside of the First Amendment speech guarantees. It does not exist. I am not contradicting myself, I am trying to take your absurd example and fitting into a provision of the Cnstitution that actually exists.

My solution is not invalid. It is, in fact Constituionslly required. If a state allows same sex marriage, it is sanctioned by that state's highest court. The marriage license is akin to a court order allowing that marriage contract. Accordingly, the Full Faih and Credit Clause requires every other state to recognize that judgment. It is no different than a Washington court enforcing a civil judgment rendered in Texas.

Read the Constitution and then tell me how I am being inconsistent.

 

The law would stop them since incest is illegal. It's kind of disconcerting that people in this discussion seriously bring up arguments about marrying animals and incestual relationships. It's mind boggling really that this is a serious point in discussion. I don't know if that's a function of how incredibly ignorant a lot of Americans seems to be or if that's a function of the crazies on talk radio perpetuating this stupidity.

 

I wonder if God is as strongly concerned about gay marriage in the United States as his followers seem to be.

I'd guess (and it's definitely a guess) that politicians are far more concerned about it - I don't see why God would consider this sin any more extreme than any other.

That brings me to a question I'm curious about: The vast majority of the arguments against gay marriage are religious. How do Christians decide that this is an important issue? Is it just because the politico-religious leadership says so?

 

It is not just "religious leadership". Many Conservative's share my view of how this could destroy the Constitution. That is more of what they are getting at. This issue was hardly relevant (it was but not as much as it is now) many years ago. Liberals have made this an issue to drift away from the topic of the economy. Due to Obama's poor record as a President, they had to spew hate speech to win an election. Unfortunately that and some good ol' fashion voter fraud won it for 'em.

 

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I said that eventually the laws against incest would become irrelevant due to the argument of "I want to marry my brother and that's my right to pursue happiness". It is a serious point to be discussed. Perhaps those crazies on the radio have a point.

 

It is NOT constitutionally required. Ever heard of the DOMA?

 

Just playing devil's advocate, as long as they don't break any laws how does incest bring upon downfall of our society?

 

The viewpoint I've been bringing is the fact that if we pass gay marriage, federally, what would stop society from eventually saying that incest would be okay? Then after that, what would stop society from eventually saying the Constitution is not "current"? Thus resulting in the eventual (yes I know I've used that word a lot) dismantlement of the Constitution.

 

Oh my goodness, how could I have been so blind!? I fully agree. I mean, if they legalize gay marriage, ANYTHING goes after that!!

Next thing you know, they'll legalize murder AND arson.

Damn those liberal scums trying to bring down muh country.