Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: New York Gay Rights Case Seems Like a Loser http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-new-york-gay-rights-case-seems-like-a-loser/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: robertocucina http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-new-york-gay-rights-case-seems-like-a-loser/comment-page-1/#comment-74431 robertocucina Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:26:05 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10174#comment-74431 The thing is Jay, marriage is not addressed in the constitution nor is it a right, but a privilege unfortunately. I have a problem though when an elected official be it the president or anyone else states that the federal government should not be involved in marriage. The fact of the matter is, and arguable, that it is involved when it confers more than one thousand rights and benefits that can only come via federally recognized marriages, prohibited to gay couples who are married. Similarly, state governments are also involved directly when they issue marriage licenses. I wonder how straights would react if states stopped issuing licenses and the federal government ceased granting all the rights of marriage? I wonder what they would then call marriage....a privilege, a benefit? I don't think so, they'd call it a right even though the constitution doesn't view it as such. My take on all of it is, get the states out of the business of marriage and let lawyers draft contracts and file them with the state declaring a couple married as soon as their signatures are appended to the contract which is what marriage is anyway, a contract, plain and simple. Imagine the reaction of the religious wackos diving into a tailspin. I'd love to see that happen. The thing is Jay, marriage is not addressed in the constitution nor is it a right, but a privilege unfortunately. I have a problem though when an elected official be it the president or anyone else states that the federal government should not be involved in marriage. The fact of the matter is, and arguable, that it is involved when it confers more than one thousand rights and benefits that can only come via federally recognized marriages, prohibited to gay couples who are married. Similarly, state governments are also involved directly when they issue marriage licenses.

I wonder how straights would react if states stopped issuing licenses and the federal government ceased granting all the rights of marriage? I wonder what they would then call marriage….a privilege, a benefit? I don’t think so, they’d call it a right even though the constitution doesn’t view it as such.

My take on all of it is, get the states out of the business of marriage and let lawyers draft contracts and file them with the state declaring a couple married as soon as their signatures are appended to the contract which is what marriage is anyway, a contract, plain and simple. Imagine the reaction of the religious wackos diving into a tailspin. I’d love to see that happen.

]]> By: Jay http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-new-york-gay-rights-case-seems-like-a-loser/comment-page-1/#comment-74409 Jay Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:45:14 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10174#comment-74409 Considering the outrageous ruling by New York's highest court that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and that homosexual issues are not subject to strict scrutiny, I'd just as soon have the bastards duck this one. Considering the outrageous ruling by New York’s highest court that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and that homosexual issues are not subject to strict scrutiny, I’d just as soon have the bastards duck this one.

]]>