Thanks!Should the United States Supreme Court define the term marriage? Or should that be left to the states?
It should be left to the States (as unions, not marriages), and if over half the states eventually support gay unions, maybe then take it to a federal level. As it is, the federal constitution doesn't mention gay marriage and that's why the fed's left the decision to states. Nobody should be called ';married'; as far as law is concerned actually.
My definition of marriage is taken from the dictionary. You know, that book that defines words.....
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.Should the United States Supreme Court define the term marriage? Or should that be left to the states?
Since the granting of a marriage license is a civil function, the government is already involved in marriage. Therefore, I think arguments based upon a religious definition of marriage are invalid in a secular society. If an individual church wants to grant or deny the marriage CEREMONY to a same sex couple, that's their prerogative. The collective church does not have the right to force their definition on a CIVIL function. OK, I just convinced myself... Supreme Court decision defining marriage as a CIVIL UNION between two consenting adults, leaving the marriage CEREMONY to the discretion of the churches. Done, handled, next?
It should be left to the states, but the Court should rule on the applicability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to marriages.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. There are too many sociological, legal, and political dangers and consequences we don't know about to jump head first into granting ';genderless'; (if such a thing is possible) marriage. Marriage as it stands now has been proven for thousands of years to be the best way to raise children.
Cheers!
漏2009 SinisterMatt. All Rights Reserved
The states have rights to define what marriage is in their hometowns. My personal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Only because it's traditional. However, I support civil unions, nationwide when it comes to the rights of ';spouses.'; Why shouldn't a civil union be recognized if each partner whants the other to make life or death decisions for them? If what they have is eachother, I support their decisions 100%! Period.
So my answer is NO. The supreme court should stay out of it.
The Supreme Court interprets exiting law period.
Judicial interpretation is NOT opinion. It must follow a complicated set of rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_in鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_i鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_i鈥?/a>
Marriage is inherently religious in nature. Marriage should be controlled by churches, with no legal significance. Civil unions is what states should preside over.
Marriage as it stands now is a product of 20th century America. For most of history, women were possessions bought and sold by men. 鈭犅?
Under the 1st amendment, the court has no authority to define marriage. Marriage is a religious institution and thus is free from state regulation.
Under the 14th amendment, the court must ensure that both homosexual and heterosexual couples are able to enjoy the equal protection of the law and enjoy the same legal benefits of a civil union.
the states should legislate the issues. the constitution only grants the government the authority to coin money, provide interstate travel and a military defense. all other issues are left for the individual states to decide on.
marriage should be a union between 2 consenting adults.
None of the above. The government should not be in the business of sanctioning what is supposedly a religious tradition.
Let churches decide who gets married based on their beliefs. The government, if it wants to give tax breaks and other things to couples, should allow for civil unions between consenting adults.
I think the supreme court should take out ';marriage'; altogether and just use the term ';civil union'; for everybody.
My definition of marriage is an outdated ritual with benefits, that everyone should be entitled to partake in regardless of gender.
The term ';marriage'; should be defined by a legislative body, not by the courts. I feel it should be defined by the US congress, not each state.
I would define it to allow same sex couples to marry as well as two people of opposite sex
My definition of marriage:-
A legal contract entered into for emotional reasons in which 2 people singify their love and exclusive undying devotion by supplying courts and lawyers with the means to handle their divorce and eventual financial and physical separation.
The constitution of the US guarantees equal protection for all. So if the state does not grant people this right, the supreme court can intervene. This is exactly what they did for inter-racial marriage.
marriage has already been defined by webster and blacks law dictionary,changing the definition to suit a group is wrong
hey charlie,don't forget the post office and post roads
It should be left up to the states.
I believe marriage should be available to any two people who love each other.
As per the 10th Amendment, that should be left up to the states.
MY definition of marriage would be between man and a woman.
Marriage is a religious thing, Politics shouldn't touch it.
Let Vishnu decide that.
If needed, just enforce the 14th amendment would be easier.
Supreme Court.....woman was made for man.
No comments:
Post a Comment