2008 Woodie Awards
The disparity of marriage
Tom Mertz
Issue date: 2/19/08 Section: Opinion
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" First Amendment "…No state shall…deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment If this is the case, what the hell is marriage law?
Laws regulating who can marry who and what benefits you receive are clearly unconstitutional.
Not only do they violate the First Amendment by respecting an establishment of religion (marriage in the traditional way we have it on the books is clearly an establishment of religion) but they
also violate the 14th Amendment by giving advantages to heterosexual married couples that other folks don't get.
That goes against the Constitution (the highest law in the land).
Why have we (we the people) allowed the government to do this when so many of us are not heterosexual married people? Is there something about heterosexual married people that we like so much we think they deserve special treatment over everyone else?
Real marriage law, marriage law that upholds the constitution, would look like the following:
-Women and men can marry.
-Women and women can marry.
-Men and men can marry.
-Family members can marry although procreation would not be recommended.
-Anyone can marry anyone (18-year-old limit would still stand because it is a legal contract
and you need to be 18 for a contract to be enforceable)
-Groups of people can all marry each other. I'm not advocating polygamy in the sense that one guy can have a wife and a family in five different states. I'm saying that if four or five or whatever number of people are all in love with each other, they should be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Do we think that three men (or women or any combination of men, women, transgender, and those who don't identify with gender) who all claim to love each other are lying?
Is the human emotion felt by people that aren't heterosexual, in this case love, not real emotion?
Laws regulating who can marry who and what benefits you receive are clearly unconstitutional.
Not only do they violate the First Amendment by respecting an establishment of religion (marriage in the traditional way we have it on the books is clearly an establishment of religion) but they
also violate the 14th Amendment by giving advantages to heterosexual married couples that other folks don't get.
That goes against the Constitution (the highest law in the land).
Why have we (we the people) allowed the government to do this when so many of us are not heterosexual married people? Is there something about heterosexual married people that we like so much we think they deserve special treatment over everyone else?
Real marriage law, marriage law that upholds the constitution, would look like the following:
-Women and men can marry.
-Women and women can marry.
-Men and men can marry.
-Family members can marry although procreation would not be recommended.
-Anyone can marry anyone (18-year-old limit would still stand because it is a legal contract
and you need to be 18 for a contract to be enforceable)
-Groups of people can all marry each other. I'm not advocating polygamy in the sense that one guy can have a wife and a family in five different states. I'm saying that if four or five or whatever number of people are all in love with each other, they should be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Do we think that three men (or women or any combination of men, women, transgender, and those who don't identify with gender) who all claim to love each other are lying?
Is the human emotion felt by people that aren't heterosexual, in this case love, not real emotion?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
PastorGem
posted 2/19/08 @ 2:12 PM EST
It is so normal to include all of the perversions imaginable, (homosexuality, incest, group sex, I am surprised they didn't include bestiality) while always denying the most honorable of all namely POLYGAMY. (Continued…)
OpEditor
posted 2/19/08 @ 3:42 PM EST
Yes, and how about these lovely commands
Dueteronomy 21:18 - 21:21
21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. (Continued…)
RICKSDAD
RICK
posted 2/20/08 @ 12:56 PM EST
WHAT A DOPE! MAYBE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GENIUS SHOULD SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME IN THE LIBRARY BRUSHING UP ON THE HISTORY OF HUMAN SOCIETY AND THE DEVELOPEMENT OF CULTURES AND LESS TIME ON SPEWING MINDLESS PABLUM ABOUT WHO LOVES WHO, OR WHAT! DRIVEL!
Post a Comment