Filicium.com

In the Declaration of Independence it says that everybody is entitled to....?

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happines." Why then aren't monogamous homosexuals allowed to marry, if it is part of their "pursuit of happiness?" This argument was last used in Loving v. Virginia (1967), and it made inter-racial marriage legal. So, it should be only a matter of time before the same scenario will play out for gays, right? And why are people so afraid of gays marrying...how will it hurt YOU personally? It has worked in other court cases...so apparently it is legal enough. Allie...it is a question...notice the question marks? The statements preceding those are called questions...enough of a grammar lesson for today.

Public Comments

1. You are right. What can I say. The US government and the States are not allowing the rights of individuals, just as they did with slaves and women. Not fair by any means What is fair for one should be fair for all.
2. I think this document was determined to be invalid when Roe vs Wade took away the right to life.
3. I've often wondered that myself. Everyone is also entitled to "equal protection under the law" unless, of course, they are homosexual and want to get married.
4. Because the declaration of independence is not a legal document providing rights to citizens in America. Only the Constitution and the laws made thereunder are operative legal documents. The DoI may demonstrate the purpose or the "Framers' Intent" for some clauses, such as the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, but it itself can't be a basis to require a state to allow gay marriage. And no, if you read Loving v. Virginia, the Court is not HOLDING that a ban on interracial marriage is unconstitutional based on the Declaration of Independence. It may be cited, but that's not the basis of the ruling.
5. I say the government should get out of the marriage business. Get rid of all of the tax benifits that are associated with marriage and no one will care who marries who.
6. Though I agree completely that homosexuals should be allowed to be married (nobody should be able to tell anyone else who to love), this is not really a question and therefore does not belong here. The Yahoo! discussion boards would be a great place for this.
7. If it had been legal when I went to college I would've married my roommate for the tax breaks we would've received. We are both hetero. Do you see where I'm going with this?
8. Government needs to stay out of marriage.
9. That is EXACTLY why people want to rewrite the constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it won't hurt anybody, or the sanctity of marriage. In fact, they should get rid of benefits for marriage. That way even LESS people would get married, and less divorces, too.
10. Common sense is not abundant on the courts of this land and we need to understand the racial and social bias we live under .
11. "This argument was last used in Loving v. Virginia (1967), and it made inter-racial marriage legal." You're missing a major distinction. Loving v. Virginia involved a man and a woman. The differences were skin color. Homosexual marriage involves REDEFINING what marriage is. Also the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. While it might shed light on the intent of the Founders when they drafted the COnstitution, it is not itself a legal document.
12. If you take the 'pursuit of happiness' to its extreme - all hell could break out if you allowed everyone to do what they liked just because it is what they want. If the majority of people are against gay 'marriage' and vote against it, surely that is what democracy is all about..............
13. The Constitution is the law of the land not the Declaration of Independence. The damage is done to our children. Giving gays the same rights as marriage will give them the ability to adopt (of course they will not reproduce on their own.) We should be a society that encourages the Father and Mother relationships rather not trapple them underfoot. I simply think a child needs a Father and Mother. It's the ideal scenario and it's what should be encouraged (even if it's not always acheived).
14. Gays want to marry for the benefits of marriage, such as SSI and medical benefits for spouses, etc. With gay marriage the SSI will deplete earlier than before and insurance costs will rise. Personally I could care less since I am set, but for all those who are not I can understand why they would be opposed for these reasons. For moral reasons it is not for me to say since I don't think the government should legislate morality.
15. Well, unlike what common people would like you to believe and accept, people are not born with this whole homosexual thing. They rewrote psychology books only recently to include it under a "normal" disorder. Seems kinda like an oxymoron to me. Next, we will be rewriting history books to say things they don't. (actually, it's already happening as recently they have changed BC - Before Christ to BCE - Before Current Era and AD to CE - current era) People are not born gay. They make a choice, concious or unconciously to be that. I have friends/aquaintances who are. We argue about politics alot. I think the answer is in the nature vs. nurture and it would have to be their nurture. It is not hard wired into them. Just completely untrue. Before you know it, people will also be able to marry their pet. I just don't want to end up married to a toad because he will never turn into a prince and I know it.
16. Because this country was built on a moral code and to depart from that is tho undermine the society. What about someone who like little boys for happiness?
17. People molesting their children doesn't hurt me personally, either, but if the standard for opposing something in society was only that it has to affect a member personally, then nothing would be illegal or considered wrong. Likewise, the pursuit of happiness is not limitless, as life and liberty are also bounded by government (death penalty, abortion, rules on shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc as examples).
18. Austin girl i agree completely i am sort of religious and i don't agree with it but they should legally be able to marry just like everybody else the reason why homosexuals cant marry is because bush is a homophobe. The reason why people are afraid is unclear to me as well there has been a lot of religious conspirators saying that the Apocalypse is coming i hope i answered your question
19. Closet gays don't want gays to get married because that reduces the amount of possible lovers for the closet gay.
20. Your argument begs the question, why was Charlie Manson put behind bars. He was obviously pursuing his happiness. The pursuit of happiness is not an unlimited right. There are laws that are based on the common culture. Just because some people don't agree with that culture doesn't mean that we have to change them. It is against the law for a woman to marry her brother, or her father. Some people I am sure object to that. We have laws against multiple marriage in this country. Homosexuality is considered abnormal in our culture. I am sure that there is a country somewhere that homosexuality is considered normal. Perhaps that is where you should go. How does it hurt me? Our society is based on the traditional family. Children are less likely to be involved in crime when they come from a traditional two-parent (man and woman) family. You may not agree with than, but statistically, it is a fact. Most people are not ready to further fragment our society to cater to the desires of a small minority.
21. Like many have already stated: the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. If it were, then abortion would be illegal (life), taxation would be illegal (liberty to use my own money), and child molestation would not be illegal (it makes the molester happy). Homosexuality is a behavior, and therefore subject to be governed by rules and laws like all behavior. How does my neighbor's domestic abuse hurt me personally? It doesn't, but there is still a law against it because society has deemed it a bad behavior. You may not think that homosexuality is a bad behavior, and you are welcome to your opinion. All you have to do is get a majority of Americans to agree with you, and vote with you. That is how Democracy works. Trying to use the court system to force your views on people is not Democracy. Especially using the Declaration of Independence which has no legal standing. Personally, I think homosexuality is a bad behavior, and should not be encouraged. There is no other life form that engages in it, so even if you aren't religious, that should tell you it isn't right. And it would hurt me personally by further demeaning the institution of marriage. With the ridiculous divorce rate it is almost meaningless now, but allowing homosexuals to marry would further degrade it. And if homosexuals can marry, then why not 3 people, or 4 people, or a person and dog, or anything? If it's not a man and a wife, then it's nothing.
22. It says we are free to PURSUE life, liberty, and property, not that we are entitled to those things. You must go back and reread it...
23. I think you'd be surprised how few people would be opposed to an official recognition of gay unions. Polls answer the questions that polls ask. My suspicion is that the main opposition to "gay marriage" has nothing at all to do with gays. The problem is that many object to Orwellian Newspeak. Gay marriage is not and cannot, on biologic grounds, be the same as traditional marriage. To change the laws to make gay marriage legal has a greater impact in changing the definition of traditional marriage; that is, allowing a gay couple to marry changes tens or hundreds of traditional marriages without the permission of that larger group. A separate but equivalent status would, I suspect, generate much less resistance.
24. People are not "afraid" of gay people marrying. The main issue in the gay marriage debate is the legal definition of marriage. The "traditional" definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. In legal terms, if a man was able to marry a man or a woman was able to marry a woman, the next argument and step in the argument would be polygamy. If I could marry a man and change the definition of marriage, why should the legal system stop me from marrying two or three women? Or even five or six under-age girls? Gay marriage sets a dangerous legal trend.