There is no case for COURTS creating law, period.
Marriage in the secular sense is a legislative issue, and for any court to say a legislature can or cannot deem the requirements for a marriage under the law, is fundamentally insane.
No homosexual has had any “right” violated by a legislature refusing to pass a law stating they can marry a member of the same sex, in fact they are being treated absolutely equal under the law.. The law says any 2 people can marry as long as they of different gender... So, any gay man can marry any woman they want, and vice versa. They can marry legally, they choose not to... to say the legislature does not have authority to determine this is treason.
Now from a religious standpoint, the state has no say in marriage at all, if the state abolished its recognition of marriage tommorrow, I would be no less married to my wife than I am today.
From that perspect, 2 homosexuals can find some libertine pastor to wed them in some ceremony anytime, regardless of the secular recognition. They don’t generally do that though... Why? because its not about being “married” its about politics, nothing more. Attempting to force the majority to accept what they find generally abhorant behavior as “normal”.. not tolerate it, no but accept it as normal.. and that’s what this is about.
On this, I hope ALL of us here can agree!
Marriage in the secular sense is a legislative issue, and for any court to say a legislature can or cannot deem the requirements for a marriage under the law, is fundamentally insane.
If it is a legislative issue, then the rules must by equal for all participants - AND - there must be a compelling interest that allows the government to to establish the rules.
No homosexual has had any “right” violated by a legislature refusing to pass a law stating they can marry a member of the same sex, in fact they are being treated absolutely equal under the law.. The law says any 2 people can marry as long as they of different gender... So, any gay man can marry any woman they want, and vice versa. They can marry legally, they choose not to... to say the legislature does not have authority to determine this is treason.
Now we move into the problem area. We continue to say "marry" / "marriage" when we are discussing the obligations of two people in secular unions. The government DOES distiguish between the two, to the detriment of those in "secular unions" (this includes a man and woman living together, at least to a point ...). Secular "marriage" is nothing more than a contractual obligation between two parties that the government has decided to grant special priveleges.
Why? because its not about being “married” its about politics, nothing more. Attempting to force the majority to accept what they find generally abhorant behavior as “normal”.. not tolerate it, no but accept it as normal.. and that’s what this is about.
That it is about politics is 100% dead on! Forcing others to accept abhorant behaviour? We already DO! Or is homosexuality illegal? We allow them to live with who they want, for as long as they want and do with each other what they want.
This whole debate comes down to whether the government should grant the same priveleges to a homosexual union that it grants to a traditional one. 99% of the arguments on BOTH sides are emotional.
I guess the real question is: if two people enter into a secular "marriage" contract (for want of a better word!) where they agree to be one entity by law - is it proper for the government to grant only particular contracts special status.