It seems we have collectively moved past the separation of state and church issue to focus on 2 key questions.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Marriage is not a civil right; it is a right givin by laws, which were enacted by the people of this country. And I am leaving religous marriage out of that. What are laws, if they aren't the people of this country's moral values and belief systems set on paper, and enforced by the courts?


Is marriage (civil union) a right? If not a right, what then ââ?¬â?? a priviledge? Maybe the precedent has already been set to deny such a thing on the basis of a personal attribute. Maybe itââ?¬â?¢s just like a driverââ?¬â?¢s license and there can be any number of reasons to deny you one.

Perhaps marriage is a privilege to be earned by passing a test ââ?¬â?? age (already there), income, housing status, health, intelligence ââ?¬â?? these could all be really good criteria to assess your legal eligibility for marriage. Then of course you get into the trickier stuff that is typically considered civil rights issues ââ?¬â?? race, gender, and religion. Is sexual orientation a personal attribute in the same way race and gender are, or is it more like having poor eyesight, bad driving skills, or a prior bad record?

Perhaps even that question doesnââ?¬â?¢t matter ââ?¬â?? because even when it comes to civil privileges, there is no discrimination allowed on the basis of race, gender and religion ââ?¬â?? and, as it is in most western countries today, sexual orientation.

The essence of the question is � is sexual orientation a legal criterion to discriminate?


SLIPPERY SLOPE: Personally I find it hard to understand how you can equate recognizing gay marriage to opening the door to legalized polygamy or any from of marriage. Issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples doesn�t mean you then must issue marriage license to a man and two women.

I think what�s interesting, however, is that if you look at the precedents that have just been set by these amendments, that is in fact the precipice of the slippery slope. By putting the definition of marriage to a vote at the state level, you now in fact open the door to other redefinitions.

If, for example, the majority of people in Utah wanted to redefine marriage as being between one man and any number of women, there is now a clear precedent to do so. I would argue that the slippery slope to polygamy has already been created by the amendments themselves.

And perhaps other states will find other ways to redefine marriage ââ?¬Â¦ maybe limiting it to those of certain financial means, or health, or prior record ââ?¬â?? all of which are current legal criteria to discriminate for the purposes of civil privileges.

If you accept the statesââ?¬â?¢ legal right to define marriage in a discriminatory way (re: drivers license), you then accept the possibility that at some point you yourself may not qualify ââ?¬â?? because if it isnââ?¬â?¢t a right for some people, then it isnââ?¬â?¢t a right for anyone.