http://parrcenterforethics.blogspot.com/

As for all arguments about race, I think you’re making a category mistake. Race is a different category from sexual orientation. Race is a protected class under US law, sexual orientation is not.

As I said above, the question is fundamentally not about rights and fairness but about the state’s interest.

I think I might also add that while I am personally opposed to state recognized homosexual marriage, I support allowing the issue to be decided by referendum so that the people can decide what is in their interest as promulgated through government.

and even if it is a choice, who is the government to legislate that the choice is wrong?

and as a side note: I don’t know what it is with anti-gay-marriage / people morally opposed to homosexuality with this, but could you not refer to people’s significant others as their “lover”s? if you had a long term girlfriend, would you call her your “lover”? no, because it subtly demeans the relationship, and implies a certain type of relationship. that woman is Terri’s WIFE. At the very least, say partner. and for those who aren’t married, just use the same terminology you would with any heterosexual couple!

Im sorry to be the fly in the buttermilk, but there really is no such thing as discrimination based on sexual orientation because sexual orientaion has not been shown to be anything but a choice. The interacial dating annalogy does not apply here as one does not chose their skin color. When you make laws banning certain behaviors, it is not discrimination, its morality. So one is making an unparallel comparison when they categorize homosexuals with african americans and other minorities.

The idea that we should allow homosexual marrage based on fairness is all well and good, but asumes that life is indeed fair. But one must ask what is supposed fairness? And why should your viewpiont of it overide mine? My veiw of fairness is that we protect americas’ families that are already in such bad shape within and outside the church.

The opposition being just a moral oppinion I am forsed to ask why one believes allowing homosexual marrage to be the moral good? The christain worldview requires heterosexual marrage. It is clearly given as a command in scripture that if one is going to mary that it be between one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment. However what is the basis upon which one assumes the right or wrongfullness of anything? If it just is, as the oppinion of the pro-homosexual marrage arguement seems to be, then why stop there? Or even why should your oppinion override mine? There is no law that one can create that doesnot “discriminate” if that is what one wishes to say that the conservative is doing, on the basis of your moral oppinion.

I have several homosexual/lesbian freinds and co-workers, and we get allong fine. Please do not assume that I or christians in general have something personal against homosexuals. From our understanding, that is from Romans chapter one and other passages of the bible, God calls homosexuality wicked. Later in Rom. the writer goes on to tell us in chapter six verse tweenty three, that God is going to judge men in death according to their sin. So our sole goal is not condemnation, it is that we see a real danger here and we want the best for all people.

One could argue: “any person, regardless of race, can marry any other person so long as that other person is of the same race”

So… do you oppose interracial marriage? The argument you seem to be making here seems to oppose both gay marriages and interracial ones.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/iowa.same.sex/index.html

This was a well-written piece and I believe that you raised some good points. However, I don’t agree with your rationale for opposing same-sex marriage.

The laws today are indeed unfairly discriminatory. Determining intent of discrimination is difficult in the court of law, but it is quite evident that the federal DOMA and mini-DOMAs (state same-sex marriage bans) are facially discriminatory. The federal DOMA was created in response to the threat to traditional marriage posed by the Baehr v. Lewin case in Hawaii that was on the brink of legalizing same-sex marriage. States followed suit with their own mini-DOMAs. These laws were tailored so that a minority — gays and lesbians — would not be able to marry the people of their choice. If a law is discriminatory in its purpose and its impact, it is unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage bans appear to fall under this category.

The argument you are making is one that was mimicked when people were justifying anti-miscegenation laws. Their logic was: these laws are not discriminatory because they don’t prevent blacks from marrying — they just must marry within their own race. I think you would agree that such thinking is reprehensible and facially discriminatory.

I don’t believe this has anything to do with emotion. Granted, I think that marriage has intangible sentimental value that all people should be entitled to. But, it’s more a question of fairness and equality. Any law, at a minimum, must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. What is the state interest in preventing same-sex marriage? Marriage, after all, has been upheld as a civil right in numerous court cases. Who does this right belong to?

States that have had to defend same-sex marriage bans have failed to do so. Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts are good examples. Baehr v. Lewin (Miike), In re Marriage Cases, and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health all came up with a similar conclusion: banning same-sex marriage does not further a state interest.

To add a little humor: we could help ourselves get out of this economic crisis if we just legalized same-sex marriage across the country. Just think about the boon it would bring to the wedding industry!

I hope that this is the start of a good dialogue about a very controversial topic.

-Raven