Is gay marriage really an issue for the Supreme Court?

As some of you may already know, I'm into girls. For that reason, I was especially interested in the Supreme Court's challenge to California's state ban on gay marriage. Even though I'm for gay marriage, I'm also a strict Constitutionalist, and I believe that competing jurisdictions are superior to a colossal consolidation. Basically, I'm for states' rights. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear: Any powers not delegated to the federal government by the states, nor prohibited to it by the Constitution, are reserved to the states, or to the people of the states. In short, this case shouldn't even be heard.

The final decision on the legalization of government-sanctioned gay marriage in the state of California is up to Californians only - not the federal government or any of the states. It can neither be banned or legalized on a federal level. The power to do so is a matter of the states - completely.

Personally, I don't promote government-sanctioned marriage - straight or gay. I'm for the complete privatization of the institution of marriage. The government does not own marriage. No one needs a legal paper to be married. A ceremony is but an option. We are married to our partner if we feel we are. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between two individuals whose love for each other forms a spiritual bind that cannot be broken by any one person. Only those two individuals have to recognize marriage for it to be so, and, of course, the blessings of God are the ultimate say in the matter. Neither government, church, or population can destroy that.

That being said, I would prefer the complete privatization of marriage in my own state. Forcing people to recognize a union is an act of aggression. Only the contract needs to be recognized - the rest is up to the two individuals in the relationship. Churches or charities can provide marriage benefits if necessary. There is no reason to force single people to pay for married couples.

In short, the federal government has no right to:
- Ban gay marriage nationwide
- Legalize gay marriage nationwide
- Force people to recognize marital unions
- Force churches to marry couples (straight or gay)
- Prevent churches from marrying couples
- Overturn state law

This all has basis in both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The best solution is:
- State-by-state privatization, not government-sanctioned marriage
- Recognition of contract, definition up to individuals

Government-sanctioned unions ruin the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is not owned by government. It does not come from government. Our right to marry isn't an inherent right because a government says so. Marriage is up to individuals and God. Paper is paper. Love is love. The most powerful force in the universe cannot be destroyed by mankind. It is eternal, it is invincible - it is beyond words. Human law is fragile, but love...is forever.

I don't why some people don't allow this. People are who they are and they have the same right as everyone else to get married.

Some people grew up in a very different time and place.

They're still people no matter what sex they're attracted to and shouldn't be thought of differently.

I um think it's ok *cough*... Know what i'm sayin' Michelle

Lazero wrote:

They're still people no matter what sex they're attracted to and shouldn't be thought of differently.

I tend to think so, too, but I guess some people are just uncomfortable with it and think of it as sexual deviance. Although I tend to be a social libertarian on sexual matters (leave people to their lives), I'm also a cultural conservative on such matters (sex within marriage is best, promiscuity and prostitution are immoral, only have sex with people you love, don't be too open about it, try to keep it mostly between you and your partner, virgins are to be admired, don't wear slutty clothes), but that doesn't mean I think these things should be illegal. They're immoral, but I can't force my beliefs on people. I can, however, persuade them.

Where I tend to part from many cultural conservatives is that I think being gay is okay, and that following gender roles is unimportant if they only make you feel worse (in other words, boys can act like girls, and girls can act like boys).

Fzerowii wrote:

I um think it's ok *cough*... Know what i'm sayin' Michelle

Yup! I'm for both privatized gay marriage and states' rights, so state-by-state privatization FTW.

I agree on the marriage part.

So the ultimate questions I want to pose to everyone are these three:

1. Are you personally comfortable with gay marriage, and should it be legal?

2. Is gay marriage an issue for the states, as indicated by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or is it an issue for the Supreme Court?

3. Would you prefer government-sanctioned marriage or privatized marriage?

For my answers, refer to my first post.

1. I'm OK with gay marriage and it should be legal.

2. Gay marriage should be settled instate.

3. Marriage should be privatised.

this makes no sence to me.

I actually agree with Nicke8...
I'm a little confused...