VIDEO ESSAY: Should Gay Americans Have the Right to Marry?

[hiko73]

Same old, same old :)

How are you doing??

Hilz

[hiko73]

This really is a fantastic video Steve :)

[SaylaMarz]

You have a great voice. Thank you for speaking up. :)

[UnschoolingEagle]

Great video, very powerful 5*'s

[filmstocker]

Thanks for posting this and thank you for taking a stand for marriage equality.

Please post more!

(And the issue makes me think of Huck Finn, too.)

[kenballer00]

the same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. this is why it is mostly a privilege, hence the word "license",(license means privilege) because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests, such as procreation/child-rearing or both, and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage ( loving v. Virginia/baker v. nelson).

[Sonneveld]

1. I'll number these replies so you know what order they were posted.

POINT ONE: Responding to your claims likening gay marriage to incest and polygamy

Civil marriage links spouse and spouse as family, so your logic linking an incest marriage petition to a same-sex marriage petition doesnt hold up. A family member would already have a line to things such as inheritance, hospital visits, insurance policies, family leave, choosing a final place.

[Sonneveld]

2. . (Incest is also a crime because it is a form of child abuse.)

As for polygamy, whatever one may think of the practice, Im sure economics is a key reason why it isnt legal. If the head of the household dies without a will, which of the five spouses settles the estate? If one of the five spouses wants a divorce, are they entitled to half or a fifth?

[Sonneveld]

3. Should all five spouses be covered under Social Security and Medicare, and if so, should they each receive the amount a single spouse would get, or should they get that one amount and split it five ways? Should all five of the spouses be covered under the head of the households insurance policy?

[kenballer00]

what this proves is that civil marriage is not about fairness. The state is not there to issue love licenses. the main purpose of civil marriage is to promote procreation into an environment where there is two biological married parents.

[Sonneveld]

4. You're basing this on Baker v Nelson; see Point Two.

[kenballer00]

if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.

so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does to polygamy.

continuing...

[Sonneveld]

5. POINT TWO: Baker v Nelson and the 14th Amendment

I did go to Wikipedia and research Baker v Nelson. The substantial federal question that needs to be made to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 14th Amendment is that racism which shaped this country for the first 200 years must be interchangeable in the amendment with discrimination, as how we deal with that will shape this country for the next 200 years.

[Sonneveld]

6. The Constitution is a living document, it is active every day in our courts, on our streets; we would render it a dead dogma to interpret the 14th Amendment as saying, All weve learned from the scars of racial hatred is to only apply equal protection to racial hatred, but not any other kind.

[Sonneveld]

7. What I would like to see happen is for a gay couple in a civil union sue their state to be recognized as a civil marriage because a separate set of laws for different groups of people isnt Constitutional. And it wouldnt be two people seeking a marriage license, it would be two people who wish their already existing and legally sanctified union be granted the same full and equal protection as any other civil union.

[Sonneveld]

8. These are the legal questions that spring to my mind regarding Baker v Nelson:

A. The Minnesota Supreme Court contradicts itself by acknowledging the marriage statute was written using the common usage of the term marriage. Therefore, of course there would be gender-specific references in the law if the law was written based on common usage.

[Sonneveld]

9. B. The Court reasoned that not allowing the gay couple to marry did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child-rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage. But the state never asked and therefore could never know what the gay couples intention was regarding procreation and child rearing. Perhaps they intended to donate sperm, find a surrogate and commence procreation.

[Sonneveld]

10. B continued: Perhaps they intended to adopt, which would satisfy child-rearing. As a matter of fact, the state had no laws or means in place to question/test any marriage applicant about their procreation and child-rearing plans, so it is evident that the couple was denied the license based on the discrimination of assumption.

[Sonneveld]

11. C. The Court follows up by saying that childless heterosexual couples presented no more than a theoretical imperfection. By dismissing procreation and child-rearing as a key component, the Court, in effect, confirmed that the common usage of marriage was simply for ease of writing the law, and that interpretation of that usage was malleable.

[Sonneveld]

12. POINT THREE: The Constitution as a living document

The promises of the Founding Fathers are perhaps best epitomized by Jefferson on his deathbed granting his slaves their freedom. He spoke so eloquently of liberty; his mind, his soul were ahead of his time, but his flesh was not. He enjoyed the comforts slavery provided him. It was only in that moment when he would no longer be flesh that he could live up to his own ideals.

[Sonneveld]

13. These great and learned men fulfilled their task to form a nation and charged the task of keeping its promises to future generations of Americans, from suffragettes to the Civil Rights Movement to the ongoing civil and equal rights of today. The revolution ended, but its spirit must live on.

[kenballer00]

i also want to add that the state does not judge you on the basis of your orientation when issuing a marriage license but its the gender. sexual orientation is not judged by outward appearance. two straight males would get the same treatment. this is why it does not matter whether that person is gay or not because its not the deciding factor in why somebody does not get a license

[Sonneveld]

First I want to address your points, then I want to ask you a question, Ken.

Im glad I live in a country where a gay man can marry a straight woman, but the clear implication that same-gender couples will not be issued a marriage license is discrimination against homosexuals.

And you still havent defined gay lifestyle from your previous posts.

[kenballer00]

nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexual acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church or synagogue and get all the benefits that come through marriage without having to redefine marriage itself

[Sonneveld]

The definition of marriage is love.

Anything more politicizes it; cheapens it. Anything less isnt sufficient.

[kenballer00]

In a private ceremony or church marriage, the state or society do not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.

[Sonneveld]

Private institutions such as churches and synagogues can marry or not marry anyone they please, which is why they are private.

[Sonneveld]

Civil matters, anything dealing with the courts or the law (such as a marriage license), must ensure equality for all precisely because it is meant to represent the entire populace. In civil matters, there must be no discrimination; if one is wealthy or if one is poor, if one is Sikh or one is Hindu, if one is homosexual or heterosexual the law must be unbiased, blindfolded to the traits that make one biased.

[Sonneveld]

It wasnt all that long ago that public opinion in some states denied people marriage licenses for the equally arbitrary reason that their skin colors didnt match, using much of the same rhetoric youre using these years later.

[Sonneveld]

The question I wanted to ask you, Ken: I sincerely would like to know the root of your homophobia. Theres vitriol in your words. Theres distaste in your words. Where does this stem from? Thank you.

[kenballer00]

your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with

[EricIndiana]

Living the gay lifestyle being a choice is misguided too.

The choice of living a lie isnt a choice.

You are who you are, not who you choose to be. Those born again straights arent fooling anybody, they are lying to themselves because of a personal fear of God and/or of being a social outcast.

They conform to fit it.

So the choice you speak of isnt so much a choice, but an act... an act of conforming.

Itd be like saying Jews have a choice not to be Jewish, they can be Christian or Catholic.

[Sonneveld]

Thank you for watching and posting, Ken, but Im not really clear what point youre making. If indeed the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight and sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue of marriage, then any two consenting adults would be allowed to go to any courthouse in this country and get a marriage license. That isnt the case.

[Sonneveld]

You must define the vague term gay lifestyle.

You say Jews, blacks and women were discriminated against for who they were, not for who they were having sex with. But Ken, a person who is denied a marriage license because he or she is homosexual IS being discriminated against for being who they are.

[Sonneveld]

Which brings me to your offhanded comment that being gay may or may not be a choice. Well, Ive known many decent human beings who happen to be homosexual, and, since youre unclear on it, I have it on good authority that being gay is not a choice the same as you and me.

If two consenting adults wish to marry, it should not be anyones place to deny them based on the manner or frequency or anything else related to their most intimate acts; and especially not in the land of the free.