Can somebody please explain to me what spatial perspective is?

Can somebody explain to me the gay marriage issue please from a legal perspective?

  • I'm not really interested in whether you think it's right or wrong, I'm just trying to sort out the legalese of the issue in states where either same-sex marriage or civil unions are legal. If in California and other states where same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned, but civil unions are legalized (there are many) offering the same benefits as marriage, then is the issue merely about semantics? In those states does that mean gay couples and straight couples get different forms to fill out with the state registering their relationship? And in Nevada, which also constitutionally bans gay marriage but legalizes same-sex civil unions, can a man dressed as Elvis legally perform a ceremony between a same-sex couple. And if not, isn't the state then infringing on this man's private business? It seems to me the entire issue comes down to semantics for both sides of the issue, which complicates things.

  • Answer:

    There are two ways to look at it: #1: The belief that marriage is a legal institution based on the fact that when you get married legal stuff happens like changing name and all that fun stuff. This would mean that according to the 1st Amendment, the government can't decide who can get married and who can't (as long as they are adults). That's why they believe a man and a man can be married. #2: The belief that marriage is a religious institution based on the fact that it has been in every other nation's history. This would mean that according to the 1st Amendment anybody has the "right" to get married by default because of freedom of religion, and that again, government can't decide what that is so the religion does. That's why they believe only a man and a woman can be married. Now to be completely Constitutional, ALL couples would have to get a civil union because marriage isn't a government institution (and even if it were, the Constitution makes no mention of it) and marriage would have to get no benefits on its own without a civil union as well.

Deep End on me at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

In the states which ban gay marriage constitutionally but legalizes it through civil unions, it is merely a matter of terminology. The gays, which tend to see government as a god, seek its validation and want it to be called marriage. The right wing religious nuts, which hate gays more than Satan, do not want to share the same title with gays. Both sides are idiots since ALL marriages are basically civil unions. Marriage is a religious term and therefore has no bearing on the state. The state is trying to appease both sides.

from a legal perspective the states are infringing on peoples 14th amendment rights as they are not getting their equal protection under the law. This will eventually go to the supreme court where the court will rule that states cant deny any specific group their right to marriage. The 14th amendment is by far the most important amendment when it comes to civil rights cases. It is what almost every landmark case has been based around. States have the power to control marriage, but can not treat one group differently then another group as that is a violation of the constitution.

In Nevada, the state has two separate forms---one for straights, one for gays. Both have the same legal protections, just different terms. One is marriage, the other is civil union. Since the state cannot tell religions who they can and cannot marry, then, yes, an Elvis impersonator can marry a same-sex couple--as long as they fill out the appropriate civil union form either after or before the ceremony, just like in any marriage ceremony. My uncle and his partner were legally "civil unioned" in Vegas by a man dressed as Liza Minelli.

From a legal perspective. The Government needs to get out of religion. The States can do as they want in this issue. It should never go before any court. The law states that the Government can not involve themselves in religion. No matter the disputes. They are to be handled by the churches themselves.

Work benefit insurance companies don't want to extend benefits to gay partners. That's the long and short of it.

It gets even more complicated than you pointed out. In New Mexico, for example, you can have two gay couples living in neighboring houses, one couple is legally recognized by the state while they other couple not. How can that be? Well, New Mexico is one of three states that will recognize gay marriage or civil unions in other states, although they have no such laws themselves. So if one couple marries in Vegas, NM will recognize it back home. The other couple cannot get married in NM and be recognized. It's odd.

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.