People have been lining up outside the U.S. Supreme Court for days hoping that they will be among the lucky ones to get a seat for Tuesday's historic arguments on gay marriage.
As of now, gay marriage is legal in 36 states. By the end of this Supreme Court term, same-sex couples with either be able to wed in all 50 states, or gay marriage bans may be reinstituted in many of the states where they've previously been struck down.
Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments focus on two questions: First, whether bans on gay marriage are constitutional; and second, if they are, whether those states with bans may refuse to recognize out-of-state gay marriages performed where they are legal.
The court has scheduled an extraordinary 2 1/2 hours of argument, and will make the audio available online later Tuesday.
Four states — Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky — are defending their bans. They won their case in the lower court, and because other appeals courts threw out bans enacted in other states, the Supreme Court now must resolve the conflict.
The high-stakes legal battle is the culmination of a decades-long struggle in the courts, state legislatures, and at the ballot box. During that time, public opinion has changed, and done so more rapidly, and dramatically, than on any major social issue in memory.
In 1996, public opinion polls showed, on average, only 27 percent of the public favored legalization; this year, although many states still adamantly resist gay marriage, public opinion polls put the approval number nationally at well over 50 percent.
Tuesday's courtroom battle pits states' rights against the fundamental right to marry; it pits the traditional definition of marriage against a more modern definition; and it pits majority rights against minority rights.
Before the Court are the consolidated cases of 12 couples and two widowers. Among them are nurses, teachers, veterinarians, an Army sergeant and businessmen and women.
Many call themselves "accidental activists," because they filed lawsuits not to further a cause, but because of the way the bans affected their lives.
In Michigan, for instance, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer have four adopted children, two with disabilities. Because the state does not allow same-sex couples to adopt, but does allow single people to adopt, each of the women has adopted two of the children.
"We have a marriage," says April DeBoer. "We just don't have a piece of paper that legally binds us to each other."
The wake-up call about their legal status came on a two-lane highway one snowy night when a truck travelling in the wrong lane veered into a field to avoid hitting them head-on. After that harrowing near-miss, they started putting wills and trusts into place to protect the children.
But there was one thing they couldn't do: make sure that if one of them died, the other would get custody of the two children who had been formally adopted by the deceased parent.
"A judge could award that child to someone else," says Jayne Rowse, "effectively making them a legal stranger to the child they've helped raise since birth."
So, in order to challenge the state adoption laws, they challenged the ban on gay marriage.
Many of the other plaintiffs in Tuesday's case are, like Rowse and DeBoer, people who adopted or had children by artificial insemination; some couples were legally married in another state but now live in a state that that bans gay marriage.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette defends his state's ban as an example of democratic rule.
"Who decides: the courts or the voters?" Schuette asks, rhetorically. "There are 2.7 million people — voters — who made this decision."
But gay marriage advocate Mary Bonauto counters that this country does not put the fundamental constitutional rights of minorities to a vote.
"This is not about self-government or persuading voters," argues Bonauto. "It's about the Constitution and whether, constitutionally, same-sex couples can be denied the right to marry that all other Americans enjoy."
Arguing against her today will be lawyer John Bursch, representing Michigan and the other states. His task is to persuade the justices that Michigan has a rational justification for banning gay marriage.
"It's really not possible to say that the marriage definition Michigan has had since 1805, when it was still a territory before statehood, has all this time been irrational," Bursch says.
Mary Bonauto replies that it doesn't really matter what people thought at the time the Constitution was written because the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, guarantees "equal protection of the laws."
"And this is a court that has recognized time and again that we have to look at current conditions in deciding what equality means," Bonauto adds.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a fundamental right that the state cannot abridge without some real justification. It has said that prisoners have the right to marry, and so do people too poor to make child support payments.
And most famously, in 1967, the Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage.
So what are the justifications offered by the states? They cite procreation.
"Michigan has a legitimate interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to enter into permanent, exclusive unions within which to have and raise children," argues Bursch.
Bonauto counters that Michigan allows heterosexual couples to marry even if they are infertile, too old to have children, or don't want to.
Bursch cites other justifications, arguing that men and women bring different attributes to child rearing in a marriage.
"Having that diversity of both the mother and a father can be a good thing for children," Bursch says.
Bonauto will tell the justices that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, states are imposing concrete hardships. Because they are not considered one family, unmarried same-sex couples have to buy two health insurance plans to cover themselves and their children; if one of them should die, the other partner and his or her adopted children are not entitled to social security benefits. And indeed, the parent whose name is not on the adoption papers could lose custody.
"Denying same-sex couples marriage means that you are increasing the number of children who are raised outside of marriage," Bonauto says. The bans in turn deny "a whole class of children that security, that protection" of marriage "and tell these children and their parents that they "are not worthy of this most important relationship in life," Bonauto says.
Bursch replies that the states are not trying to "disparage" anyone.
"It comes down to who gets to decide between competing marriage models, which many people feel very strongly about," Bursch argues. He reiterates that the choice is up to the electorate, "and if the courts start imposing their own view of what marriage should be, that's going to do huge damage to the democratic liberty principle that has always animated our Constitution."
The second question being debated in the Supreme Court Tuesday is whether states that ban same-sex marriage may refuse to recognize legal marriages performed out of state.
The standard bearer for the recognition cases, and indeed, all the cases, is widower Jim Obergefell. Because his lawsuit was filed first, all of the consolidated cases are known as Obergefell v. Hodges (Richard Hodges is the Ohio official in charge of death certificates).
It is the death certificate of Obergefell's longtime partner that is at the center of the recognition question.
Obergefell and John Arthur were together for 20 years. But by 2013, Arthur was bedridden and dying of ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. On June 26th, the two men were watching TV as news flashed across the screen that the Supreme Court had struck down the federal law barring the national government from recognizing gay marriages performed in states where they are legal.
"I just immediately leaned over, hugged him, gave him a kiss and said, let's get married," Obergefell recalls. "It just seemed like the most perfect thing possible to do at the moment."
Friends and family quickly raised the money for a medical charter to Maryland, where gay marriage is legal. The couple exchanged vows as the plane sat on the tarmac and then headed back to Cincinnati.
Just a few days later, though, the two would learn that Ohio would not recognize Jim as a surviving spouse on John's death certificate.
"It was heartbreaking," Obergefell says.
A federal judge, acting on an expedited basis because of John's health, ordered the state of Ohio to record Jim as the surviving spouse when the time came.
Three months and 11 days later, John Arthur died, and Jim's name was listed as the surviving spouse on the death certificate.
The state appealed, and if it wins in the Supreme Court, it can reissue the death certificate without Jim's name.
At the Supreme Court Tuesday gay marriage advocate Douglas Hallward-Driemeier will tell the justices that states have long recognized each other's marriages.
"The history of state recognition of marriage is that a marriage that was valid where it was celebrated is going to be recognized in the new state, even if that couple could not have gotten married in that state," he says.
The reason for that is that people travel across state lines all the time, and their marriage travels with them. It doesn't matter, notes Hallward-Driemeier, that the wife, for instance, is too young to get married in some of the states a couple may subsequently live in or travel through.
The four states defending their gay marriage bans also defend their anti-recognition laws, but lawyers for the four declined to be interviewed.
Kyle Duncan, who represents 15 other states with non-recognition laws, argues that the issue of gay marriage is unique, especially in the context of the state's prerogative to define and regulate marriage.
"Before 2003, no state in the United States had recognized same-sex marriage," Duncan says. Indeed, before 2000 no country in the world had recognized same-sex marriage, he observes.
"If it's that new and it involves this bedrock exercise of sovereignty by states," Duncan argues, "it seems to us the right position is to say, then let the states figure it out."
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
juraigamer wrote: And so it begins, another great and useless political battle of our time.
Kinda my feelings. I don't understand why it is still an issue. Sad to see so much time and money is going to be wasted on something that should be a pretty clear right for all.
Although I'm still convinced the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all.
I have no issue with gay marriage, and I think that it is time that the Supreme Court recognizes this right.
I wonder will this ruling touch on the right to a religious marriage.
So tired of this. Should be pretty open and shut considering the previous stance on interracial marriage....I honestly can't believe people can argue against it with a straight face.
Or, and I know this is crazy, instead of "Mariage Licenses" everyone gets domestic partnership licenses and people can just call entering a domestic partnership a damn marriage TO THEMSELVES...Why do tax benefits exist for something named specifically for what is 90% of the time a religious union...
Never happen because the masses would freak the hell out (mostly in the 40+ age range I'd reckon but they're the voters too) but a man can dream.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, but people still seem to love writing anti-gay marrige laws, despite the fact that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Edit:ninjed
To play Devil's advocate: how are they unconstitutional?
Because the supreme court said so (and to some extent the 9th circuit as well). Now I'm not an expert on constitutional law but I'd say it has something to do with treating a groups as lower than another group. Not sure exactly.
There are probebly some better explaination, as I said, I'm not an expert on constitutional law. I'll try and find something.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, but people still seem to love writing anti-gay marrige laws, despite the fact that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Edit:ninjed
To play Devil's advocate: how are they unconstitutional?
Because the supreme court said so (and to some extent the 9th circuit as well). Now I'm not an expert on constitutional law but I'd say it has something to do with treating a groups as lower than another group. Not sure exactly. There are probebly some better explaination, as I said, I'm not an expert on constitutional law. I'll try and find something.
If SCOTUS said it was constitutional already: 1) please cite the case; 2) it wouldn't be in SCOTUS again no?
Again. how are these laws unconstitutional? Come on guy, if you're supporting a position at least try. [i][u]
EDIT: Are you thinking of the Equal Protection Clause?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, but people still seem to love writing anti-gay marrige laws, despite the fact that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Edit:ninjed
To play Devil's advocate: how are they unconstitutional?
Because the supreme court said so (and to some extent the 9th circuit as well). Now I'm not an expert on constitutional law but I'd say it has something to do with treating a groups as lower than another group. Not sure exactly. There are probebly some better explaination, as I said, I'm not an expert on constitutional law. I'll try and find something.
If SCOTUS said it was constitutional already: 1) please cite the case; 2) it wouldn't be in SCOTUS again no?
Again. how are these laws unconstitutional? Come on guy, if you're supporting a position at least try. [i][u]
I just looked into it a bit. The supreme court ruled DOMA unconstitutional because it violated the 5th amendment (equal protection). I know they ruled DOMA unconstitutional, just couldn't remember exactly why. And I think the fact that most of the laws get shot down before they even reach the supreme court is rather telling.
I see your edit and raised you an edit! All your edits are belong to us!
Ah DOMA. Yes Equal Provision in that instance meant that if one state made it legal the other states had to recognize it (which is why DOMA was created). it is a good argument but open to slippery slope in a big way if one state legalize polygamy or something such.
I'm surprised one of the states hasn't gone off the deep end and just quit certifying marriages.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, but people still seem to love writing anti-gay marrige laws, despite the fact that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Ok, explain to me where in the Constitution that gay marriage, or indeed marriage in general, is protected?
Edit: Also, hilariously Ginsburg has spoken out on her stance on this issue. Bad move, she basically disqualified herself.
I'd point out that if states are not going to allow gay marriage they need to instituted equal rights for everyone including tax, pension, and custody benefits. Outside of that I think "Marriage", outside of the ceremony, should never be mentioned and it should all be about civil unions between at least 2 people and up to a limited number (nip that polygamy thing in the bud)
Hulksmash wrote: So tired of this. Should be pretty open and shut considering the previous stance on interracial marriage....I honestly can't believe people can argue against it with a straight face.
Or, and I know this is crazy, instead of "Mariage Licenses" everyone gets domestic partnership licenses and people can just call entering a domestic partnership a damn marriage TO THEMSELVES...Why do tax benefits exist for something named specifically for what is 90% of the time a religious union...
Never happen because the masses would freak the hell out (mostly in the 40+ age range I'd reckon but they're the voters too) but a man can dream.
You see... that's a reasonable compromise.
But, then again... the SJW-y crew hates it because the official documents won't have the word "marriage"... they'll argue that it's "if I can't have it, no one can!".
*shrugs*
Having that word on a state-sponsored document some how makes it more "real"???
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, but people still seem to love writing anti-gay marrige laws, despite the fact that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Ok, explain to me where in the Constitution that gay marriage, or indeed marriage in general, is protected?
Edit: Also, hilariously Ginsburg has spoken out on her stance on this issue. Bad move, she basically disqualified herself.
I'd point out that if states are not going to allow gay marriage they need to instituted equal rights for everyone including tax, pension, and custody benefits. Outside of that I think "Marriage", outside of the ceremony, should never be mentioned and it should all be about civil unions between at least 2 people and up to a limited number (nip that polygamy thing in the bud)
Marriage has been viewed as a constitutional right for some time under the US Constitution actually.
As this is not my bailiwick I'll just cite a summary:
Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?
Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.
The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm
The rub is not if marriage is a right, but if the state may regulate what types of marriages are available. If they can't then how do you stop more extreme things such as child marriage or polygamy (which often occur at the same time) ?
In my opinion, it's also a violation of the first amendment with that whole bit about not passing laws establishing a religion. The reason being that the vast majority of lawmakers that oppose same-sex marriage use their religion and point to the Bible as justification for that opposition. That's just my opinion, but that's partly because I have big problems with organized religion, especially when most of them consider the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment to be negotiable.
Now, if you want to put forth a strictly biological argument that marriage should be man/woman for the propagation of the species, then let's go all the way with that and require every married couple to pop out at least one kid, and if you're incapable of having kids, then you can't get married.
I don't see marriage in that sentence. Thats woefully ambiguous.
Besides, I would argue that it is equal. Every man is free to marry a women. And every women is free to marry a man. Thats equality for everyone. Everyone is treated equally, regardless of your sexual orientation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: That's just my opinion, but that's partly because I have big problems with organized religion, especially when most of them consider the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment to be negotiable.
Its actually "Thou shalt not murder", not "Thou shalt not kill".
Grey Templar wrote: I don't see marriage in that sentence. Thats woefully ambiguous.
Besides, I would argue that it is equal. Every man is free to marry a women. And every women is free to marry a man. Thats equality for everyone. Everyone is treated equally, regardless of your sexual orientation.
Really not sure if you're serious or trolling right now...
Tannhauser42 wrote: That's just my opinion, but that's partly because I have big problems with organized religion, especially when most of them consider the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment to be negotiable.
Its actually "Thou shalt not murder", not "Thou shalt not kill".
You may not realize it, but you hit the nail on the head as to the root of the problem when I said they find it "negotiable." Too many will pick and choose which translation they want to use to best justify their actions. They'll use the modern English when it suits them, they'll use the ancient Hebrew when it suits them, etc.
Grey Templar wrote: Care to point out how that isn't treating everyone equally?
Because marriage is not about individuals, but couples. Marriage provides tangible legal benefits to couples.
Yes, and everyone is perfectly equal in that. Any man can marry any women, and any women can marry any man, to form a couple.
How is that not perfectly equitable?
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you being willfully ignorant?. Because your argument is what it best described as "insane troll logic".
I read what you wrote.
Yes, the government gives benefits to couples. And everyone has an equal chance to be a couple. Men can marry women, and women can marry men. Again, what isn't equitable about that?
Can you answer that without resorting to personal attacks.
Grey Templar wrote: Care to point out how that isn't treating everyone equally?
Because marriage is not about individuals, but couples. Marriage provides tangible legal benefits to couples.
Yes, and everyone is perfectly equal in that. Any man can marry any women, and any women can marry any man, to form a couple.
How is that not perfectly equitable?
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you being willfully ignorant?. Because your argument is what it best described as "insane troll logic".
I read what you wrote.
Yes, the government gives benefits to couples. And everyone has an equal chance to be a couple. Men can marry women, and women can marry men. Again, what isn't equitable about that?
Can you answer that without resorting to personal attacks.
I'm attacking the argument, not you. I think the argument is inane.
It's the exact same argument that some politicians have used (word for word), and it's equally as ridiculous now as it is then.
Grey Templar wrote: So you have no refutation beyond saying "its troll logic"?
Ok, I'll take that as conceding the point.
Not really, I just don't to take the time out of my day to look do any research to refute an argument that will never matter. That sort of argument would never stand up in a court of law. It's like arguing against conspiracy theorists, not worth my time.
Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.
Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.
I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.
Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children. Besides, outliers shouldnt be considered in a general discussion.
Grey Templar wrote: Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.
Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.
I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.
Well... Ok.
I disagree with that premise.
Gay people can certainly have children and can certainly provide the same way as male/female household unit.
This is why I'd want government to drop the word "marriage" and call all unions "civil unions" that all parties benefit regardless of gender. What you call it in your church, peers, worklife, etc... is your business.
Grey Templar wrote:Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.
Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.
I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.
There are couple holes in that argument.
1st, that marriage is about the production of children when many married people are infertile or just don;t have kids. Not only that, many gay/lesbian couples have kids, either through an agreemnt with another partner, artifical insemination ect. And it forgets about taking care of kids. Gay couples can adopt after all.
Then it looks at it in a religious view, something the 1st amendment disallows. Even if that was true, why can non-religious people marry?
Grey Templar wrote:Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children. Besides, outliers shouldnt be considered in a general discussion.
1.6% of people are gay/lesbian, 11% of reproductive age women are infertile.
Grey Templar wrote: I say the difference between this and interracial marriage is massive. They're not comparable at all.
In what manner? Legally, or in some other fashion?
Plaintiffs do not have ACW amendments and constitutional federal law, true. But SCOTUS may stretch or just go back to the earlier decision that knocked DOMA. I think SCOTUS will dump this. To me what is more relevant is how they will handle what is clearly an appropriate function of the government to otherwise regulate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.
Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.
I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.
1. Gay couples can provide society with children now. 2. That argument also was found to not hold merit in other cases involving infertile couples etc. Earlier in history that was a serious argument, when marriage was about passing on and retaining property. Courts no longer rely on the requirement of the marriage as a babymaker. Otherwise old farts couldn't get married, nor could couples where one or more spouse couldn't have children.
Why can't they call it marriage? Did God copyright it? Should all countries and religions other than Christianity rename marriage to something else, out of respect for your, and only your, traditions, Grey Templar? (I'm christian, btw. And if you're Jewish or something and arguing only those marriage traditions should apply, that just further illustrates the point).
Also, marriage is about far more than just popping out kids. Most of the legal benefits of marriage don't have anything to do with kids, in fact. Things like spouses collecting pensions upon death has absolutely nothing to do with having kids, and you can collect on most child related benefits without being married.
DarkLink wrote: Why can't they call it marriage? Did God copyright it? Should all countries and religions other than Christianity rename marriage to something else, out of respect for your, and only your, traditions, Grey Templar? (I'm christian, btw. And if you're Jewish or something and arguing only those marriage traditions should apply, that just further illustrates the point).
Also, marriage is about far more than just popping out kids. Most of the legal benefits of marriage don't have anything to do with kids, in fact. Things like spouses collecting pensions upon death has absolutely nothing to do with having kids, and you can collect on most child related benefits without being married.
Your rant is sweet like the cries of a baby. Get a job Baby! They can call it what they want. To be a legally recognized marriage however, it has to meet certain criteria, which is what we're discussing.
timetowaste85 wrote: Welp, I found another disgusting user on the board to add to my ignore list.
Jack loves Sally. They get married, have kids, and receive benefits through their marriage from the government.
Jack loves Bob. Tough gak, Jack and Bob. You can have a domestic partnership and get no benefits cuz you both have a penis.
You see the problem with this?
Jack and Bob are smarter than Jack and Sally because now they can drive cool cars and go on vacations to Europe?
And why are you putting someone on ignore? If its who I am thinking of, he's gong through the list of good faith arguments made in the past in previous court cases. Some of them may still have merit.
I look forward to this passing, and the unhappiness of many bigots.
Delicious.
(At home in Ireland we're having a referendum on this topic in a short while- I am incredibly nervous that it won't pass! I will be so ashamed to be Irish if that happens. Again. )
To me, it's the "you can't call it marriage!" thing. Stinks of "You can't be in MY clubhouse, queers!"
If this passes it will be interesting to see what other types of taboo relationship models become "legalized" or "mainstream" such as polygamy as someone above mentioned.
cincydooley wrote: They physically can't. It is a biological impossibility.
Good job humans don't do anything that is bilogically impossible, such as communicating instantly with people from around the globe, or any of the millions of other things humans have been able to do by overcome the natural limitations in place upon our forms.
Babies combining only the DNA of the parents (whether they be male/male or female/female) are not too far off in scientific terms. Ditto with being able to grow babies independent of a natural womb.
Because a couple isn't just defined as a man and a woman. PS - you need to change your avatar back, i need that grumpy cat fix when i'm reading your posts.
Jihadin wrote: I going to predict.....the SCOTUS is going to throw it back to the State's
IMO, I think they'll throw it to the states in the same way as they did the "dirty" bits of Brown v. Board of Education.... Sure, they'll come out and say "gay marriage is legal in all 50 states"... but I have the distinct feeling that many of the states where it is still illegal will have lawyers working up ways of "getting around" that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
slk28850 wrote: If this passes it will be interesting to see what other types of taboo relationship models become "legalized" or "mainstream" such as polygamy as someone above mentioned.
Whoa buddy... one fight at a time here... people ain't ready for that yet
People didn't figure that out when the made the argument of "white people can marry white people, black people can marry black people, everything is equal" when arguing for the constitutionality of the interracial marriage bans. They are not going to figure out that it is a stupid argument for this either.
juraigamer wrote: And so it begins, another great and useless political battle of our time.
Kinda my feelings. I don't understand why it is still an issue. Sad to see so much time and money is going to be wasted on something that should be a pretty clear right for all.
Although I'm still convinced the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all.
It has to be. If we look at marriage from the vantage that there's a bifurcation, a clear line of demarcation, then that line can only be the Ritualistic and the Legal notions of marriage.
The religious, lovey-dovey, white wedding, dad walks me down the isle, sickness and health, Bridezilla, bachelor party, etc - that's the Ritual side of it.
Marriage is also a legally binding contract and has been since a couple of Tuesdays before history was recorded. This is the side with Dowry's and prenups and Familial political arrangements, etc., and the legal recognition of two people as one legal and contractual "entity" for certain things like taxes, etc.
Unfortunately where there's a contract means there's laws. Where there's laws, there's societal systems in place to enforce them. Which means government. Whether that's at the hunter gatherer tribal band level, or the Federalistc Democratic Republic level.
And if there's laws, systems, and governments enforcing them, then there's definitions of what these are, and with the contract of marriage, it unfortunately starts with "what is marriage and who is marriage between".
... but i'm with you. I can't believe it's 2015 and this is still a thing we're debating.
Hulksmash wrote: Why do tax benefits exist for something named specifically for what is 90% of the time a religious union...
Tax penalties. There's no way to do my taxes as a married individual that doesn't result in my paying more the IRS than my spouse & I would pay separately....
The primary issue when it comes to benefits has to do with those benefits that there is otherwise no way to recapture. As mentioned, parental rights are high on the list, but also things spousal survival benefits (both social security & private pensions) which depend upon a recognized (i.e., state sanctioned) marriage. Plus there is the whole collection of "family law" that mostly addresses what happens at the dissolution of a family (i.e. married) unit.
But I don't know if it's actually 90%. I suspect, but only suspect, that the % of civil marriages is much higher than 10% at this point.
Hulksmash wrote: Why do tax benefits exist for something named specifically for what is 90% of the time a religious union...
Tax penalties. There's no way to do my taxes as a married individual that doesn't result in my paying more the IRS than my spouse & I would pay separately....
Depends on the couple's specific situation. It could be a benefit or a hinderance for tax purposes to be married.
DarkLink wrote: Unless they artificially inseminate. Or adopt. But, y'know, that never happens.
Of course anyone can adopt. Homosexuals can't reproduce without a third party. Its impossible.
We were talking about reproduction, were we not?
To be technical one could argue that infertile individuals would automatically require a third party to be capable of reproduction. Even fertility treatment does require it after all
I understand what you mean though, just wanted to have fun.
DarkLink wrote: Unless they artificially inseminate. Or adopt. But, y'know, that never happens.
Of course anyone can adopt. Homosexuals can't reproduce without a third party. Its impossible.
We were talking about reproduction, were we not?
My point was, who cares. Which, I guess is a pretty crappy rhetorical question as there are obviously a lot of really, really, really gakky people out there who do care, but I digress.
My point was, who cares. Which, I guess is a pretty crappy rhetorical question as there are obviously a lot of really, really, really gakky people out there who do care, but I digress.
I don't think that automatically make someone "gakky." My wife an I had legitimate concerns that she'd be unable to conceive naturally. We were opposed to fertility treatments, and had we not been fortunate enough to conceive, we'd have explored adoption.
Doesn't change the fact that, like I said, a homosexual couple is physically incapable of reproduction.
None of which should have any bearing on protection under the law when it comes to marriage rights.
Grey Templar wrote: Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.
Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.
I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.
That argument is specious, at best.
Neither can hetero couples where one (or both) partners are incapable of bearing children, beyond child-bearing age, or simply choose not to have children, and yet they receive all the benefits of marriage anyway.
It is not a "sacred institution". It's been adopted from tribal cultures by various religious organizations since religious organizations have existed. It's a social construct, nothing more. The Church took it from the pagans, who had been performing marriages between people of all genders for millennia before it existed... in much the same way it adopted the holidays of the pagans.
cincydooley wrote: Doesn't change the fact that, like I said, a homosexual couple is physically incapable of reproduction.
And as I and others have already said, they are no more unable to have children "naturally" than many other people in heterosexual couples. And as I also pointed out, the science of producing a baby made only from the dna of the parents in a same sex relationship is not too far away either.
Grey Templar wrote: Care to point out how that isn't treating everyone equally?
Under your law people who are straight can marry who they love, while people who are gay cannot marry who they love. That isn't equal.
The point you are missing is that giving both straight and gay men the right to marry women and only women reduces freedom down to nothing more than meaningless, contextless freedoms, with no consideration for what freedoms people actually want or do not want.
If you really, truly can't understand this, consider if a law was passed tomorrow saying that the only woman that people are allowed to marry was Angelina Jolie. Now, obviously that wouldn't be equal for women, as all the ones who weren't Angelina Jolie wouldn't be free to marry. But that aside, just look at the situation of myself and Brad Pitt - we would be equally free by your definition, as we were both had exactly the same options for who we could and couldn't marry. But in the real world Brad Pitt would still be free to remain married to the woman he loves, while I would no longer be able to be married to my wife, and instead would be 'free' only to marry Angelina Jolie, who I find kind of annoying and who most likely wants nothing to do with me. So Brad Pitt and myself would not be equally free in the marriage stakes, despite our circumstances perfectly fitting your test for freedom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.
Despite the sacredness of death rituals in every major religion, there's never been an attempt to require people to call funerals by a different name when no religion is involved in the burial. Because that would be some crazy nonsense.
And yet that's exactly what you're trying to do with marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children. Besides, outliers shouldnt be considered in a general discussion.
Married women with no kids are now about 6% in the US. That's probably less of an outlier than gay couples.
Not that the actual number matters. The point is that no-one, religious or not, has ever heard of a married couple that couldn't have kids and thought 'oh they're not really married'. That is a thing that doesn't happen. No-one actually thinks like that, it is a fiction invented by the anti-marriage crowd as their arguments getting increasingly farcical.
Marriage is a commitment between two people to stay together until they die. Marriage vows say it with more pleasant language but that's basically what it amounts to. Kids, pets, houses in the suburbs and everything else is common, but not in any way an actual requirement of the marriage.
The Supreme Court’s historic consideration Tuesday of whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples nationwide to marry seemed to come down to a familiar arbiter: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
That’s normally a safe haven for gay rights activists — Kennedy has written each of the court’s major victories advancing their movement. But the question after the hearing seemed to be whether forcing reluctant states to allow same-sex unions was a logical extension of the court’s rulings or too much, too fast.
Kennedy seemed to be working it out. On the one hand, he pressed lawyer Mary L. Bonauto, representing gay couples challenging states’ bans, to explain why the court should change the tradition of marriage as only between a man and a woman when the concept of same-sex marriage is so new.
“This definition [of traditional marriage] has been with us for millennia,” Kennedy said. “And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ”
But by the end of the arguments, questioning John Bursch, the attorney representing four states that want to keep restrictive laws, Kennedy sounded more like one of the lyrical passages in one of his opinions.
Same-sex marriage status in the U.S., state-by-state View Graphic Same-sex marriage status in the U.S., state-by-state
“Same-sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage,” Kennedy told Bursch. “We know we can’t procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.”
The justices are considering two simple-sounding questions: whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, if not, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.
But the arguments were filled with discussions of equal protection and fundamental liberties, how an understanding of the Constitution changes with society, and when majority rule must give way to minority rights.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the member of the court who most seemed during arguments to be searching for middle ground, said a decision finding a constitutional right at this time would mean radical change and would short-circuit public debate.
“You’re not seeking to join the institution — you’re seeking to change what the institution is,” Roberts told Bonauto. “The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship, and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”
Roberts added later: “If you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”
“I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts said. “And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
Bonauto wanted a clear ruling on the constitutional question. She said it was the states that had closed the debate, by passing constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Amending state constitutions and relying on majority vote for rights is not what the Constitution anticipates, she said.
“If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity,” Bonauto said.
She was making her first argument before the Supreme Court but has been a pioneer in the legal movement to secure same-sex marriage, winning the first major case that found a right to same-sex marriage, in Massachusetts in 2003.
Bonauto received a boost from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who pointed out that definitions of marriage had already changed. “Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female,” she said.
But there was resistance from the conservative justices, and a bit from one of the liberals, Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “Suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked that if the definition of marriage was simply a commitment between loving consenting adults, how could a state withhold that from siblings, or two women and two men who decided to marry. “Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Alito asked.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that if the decisions on marriage continue to be made democratically by the states, those states could make religious accommodations that would not be possible if there was a decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
“Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?” he asked.
Bonauto said it was well established that clergy are not forced to perform actions that violate their religious beliefs.
The Obama administration weighed in on behalf of the couples, and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. argued that withholding marriage violates equal-protection guarantees.
“In a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community . . . it is simply untenable — untenable — to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals,” he said.
Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general representing that state along with Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, pleaded with the justices to allow the democratic debate over same-sex marriage to continue.
“This case isn’t about how to define marriage,” he said. “It’s about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process or is it the federal courts? And we’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor stopped him there. “Nobody is taking that away from anybody,” she said. “Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation or who to marry or not marry.”
Bursch said that the states’ interest in marriage was not to “deny dignity or to give second-class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology.”
He said the states’ interest in marriage was keeping together men and women to care for the children that they intentionally or accidentally create.
Justice Elena Kagan asked Bursch if he believes that “if one allowed same-sex marriage, one would be announcing to the world that marriage and children have nothing to do with each other.”
He said the state has a child-centric interest in marriage, not to legitimize the relationships of committed adults.
Roberts dominated the second argument, about whether states could be forced to recognize marriages performed in states where they were legal.
The question would be moot if the court declares a constitutional right, but the second argument lent force to the idea that it might be the chief justice’s preferred path and could perhaps win a wider majority.
If states are forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, Roberts suggested, it would be “only a matter of time” before same-sex marriage settled in as a national norm. It would effectively allow “one state” or a minority of states to “set policy for the nation.”
At the same time, the Roberts line of questioning suggested he did not view that possibility with great alarm, at least as an alternative to a court decision holding that all states must permit same-sex marriages within their borders.
Isn’t it “quite rare for a state not to recognize” a marriage performed elsewhere? he asked.
The recognition of a constitutional right would mark the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion about gay rights and a dramatic change in the nation’s jurisprudence. Same-sex marriages were practically unheard of in the nation until a Massachusetts court decision cleared the way for unions there just a dozen years ago.
Now, more than 70 percent of Americans live in states where same-sex couples are allowed to marry, according to estimates.
The questions raised in the cases that the court will consider were left unanswered in 2013, when the justices last confronted the issue of same-sex marriage. A slim majority of the court said at the time that a key portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — withholding recognition of same-sex marriages — was unconstitutional and in a separate case allowed same-sex marriages to resume in California.
Since then, courts across the nation — with the notable exception of the Cincinnati-based federal appeals court that left intact the restrictions in the four states at issue — have struck down a string of state prohibitions on same-sex marriage, many of them passed by voters in referendums.
When the Supreme Court declined to review a clutch of those court decisions in October, same-sex marriage proliferated across the country.
Couples may now marry in 37 states and the District of Columbia.
Public attitudes toward such unions have undergone a remarkable change as well. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll showed a record 61 percent of Americans say they support same-sex marriage. The acceptance is driven by higher margins among the young.
When the justices declined in October to review the string of victories same-sex marriage proponents had won in other parts of the country, it meant the number of states required to allow gay marriages grew dramatically, offering the kind of cultural shift the court often likes to see before approving a fundamental change.
The combined cases now before the Supreme Court are Obergefell v. Hodges.
“This definition [of traditional marriage] has been with us for millennia,” Kennedy said
The legal joining of people into a single legal entity for some aspects of legal rights and responsibilities? Yep, this fundamental definition of traditional marriage has been with us for millennia.
The exact details of the people involved in the marriage (and indeed number of people), the rights and responsibilities they have within the marriage and in the wider society have all been highly variable, even within western society.
“You’re not seeking to join the institution — you’re seeking to change what the institution is,” Roberts told Bonauto. “The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship, and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”
Entirely incorrect. But hey, it is not like people like this are able to be in positions of powe... wait a second!
Please show the nation that had same sex marriages prior.
While I'm ok (as in don't care at all) you need to defeat the argument.
I'm thinking SCOTUS may actually go NO on this, that states should be able to decide, but that marriages that are legally enacted in one state must be accepted in other states.
Frazzled wrote: Please show the nation that had same sex marriages prior.
While I'm ok (as in don't care at all) you need to defeat the argument.
That is not required in order to demonstrate that the "traditional definition" is not as well defined, or defined in the way that Kennedy suggests. At its most fundamental level, "traditional" marriage can be defined as I described. After that you need to start more carefully defining what "tradition" you are using to narrow your world view in order to justify discriminating against people.
Frazzled wrote: Please show the nation that had same sex marriages prior.
While I'm ok (as in don't care at all) you need to defeat the argument.
That is not required in order to demonstrate that the "traditional definition" is not as well defined, or defined in the way that Kennedy suggests. At its most fundamental level, "traditional" marriage can be defined as I described. After that you need to start more carefully defining what "tradition" you are using to narrow your world view in order to justify discriminating against people.
Both justices argued tradition was man/woman. Again, please cite a nation state where there was otherwise. Its a hard argument to overturn. At least two members of the court are saying -with strength-that this is not an issue that should be decided by fiat, but at the state level. Frankly that argument holds the most merit.
I'm not sure it will hold up to all justices though. It only works if you want to base stuff on tradition, and I certainly don't. A lot of the arguments for and against gay marriage tend to have people arguing past each other, with reasons the other side will never fully understand.
XIJ'WHA was a key cultural and political leader in the Zuni VIcommunity in the late nineteenth century, at one point serving as an emissary from that southwestern Native American nation to Washington, D.C.' He was the strongest, wisest, and most esteemed member of his community. And he was a berdache, a male who dressed in female garb. Such men were revered in Zuni circles for their supposed connection to the supernatural, the most gifted of them called lhamana, spiritual leader. We'wha was the most celebrated Zuni lhamana of the nineteenth century. He was married to a man.
Ifeyinwa Olinke lived in the nineteenth century as well.2 She was a wealthy woman of the Igbo tribe, situated in what is now Eastern Nigeria. She was an industrious woman in a community where most of the entrepreneurial opportunities were seized by women, who thereby came to control much of the Igbo tribe's wealth. Ifeyinwa socially overshadowed her less prosperous male husband. As a sign of her prosperity and social standing, Ifeyinwa herself became a female husband to other women. Her epithet "Olinke" referred to the fact that she had nine wives.
Sergius and Bacchus were Roman soldiers who lived in the fourth century. They were male lovers. Yet it was for their Christian faith that they were persecuted by the Romans. Ultimately, Bacchus was tortured to death by the intolerant Romans. According to Christian tradition, Sergius' faith faltered with the death of his lover, only to return when Bacchus appeared to him in a vision and implored, "Your reward will be me," meaning that the couple would be reunited in heaven should Sergius maintain his faith. Sergius kept faith and, like his mate, died a martyr. During the Middle Ages, the relationship of Sergius and Bacchus was considered an exemplar of companionate marriage, or marriage based upon agapic love and mutual respect.
XIJ'WHA was a key cultural and political leader in the Zuni VIcommunity in the late nineteenth century, at one point serving as an emissary from that southwestern Native American nation to Washington, D.C.' He was the strongest, wisest, and most esteemed member of his community. And he was a berdache, a male who dressed in female garb. Such men were revered in Zuni circles for their supposed connection to the supernatural, the most gifted of them called lhamana, spiritual leader. We'wha was the most celebrated Zuni lhamana of the nineteenth century. He was married to a man.
Ifeyinwa Olinke lived in the nineteenth century as well.2 She was a wealthy woman of the Igbo tribe, situated in what is now Eastern Nigeria. She was an industrious woman in a community where most of the entrepreneurial opportunities were seized by women, who thereby came to control much of the Igbo tribe's wealth. Ifeyinwa socially overshadowed her less prosperous male husband. As a sign of her prosperity and social standing, Ifeyinwa herself became a female husband to other women. Her epithet "Olinke" referred to the fact that she had nine wives.
Sergius and Bacchus were Roman soldiers who lived in the fourth century. They were male lovers. Yet it was for their Christian faith that they were persecuted by the Romans. Ultimately, Bacchus was tortured to death by the intolerant Romans. According to Christian tradition, Sergius' faith faltered with the death of his lover, only to return when Bacchus appeared to him in a vision and implored, "Your reward will be me," meaning that the couple would be reunited in heaven should Sergius maintain his faith. Sergius kept faith and, like his mate, died a martyr. During the Middle Ages, the relationship of Sergius and Bacchus was considered an exemplar of companionate marriage, or marriage based upon agapic love and mutual respect.
Not seeing countries there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure it will hold up to all justices though. It only works if you want to base stuff on tradition, and I certainly don't. A lot of the arguments for and against gay marriage tend to have people arguing past each other, with reasons the other side will never fully understand.
This is SCOTUS. They are all about traditional. Thats their job. I know you don't thats why you're not on SCOTUS.
Frankly the suit overreaches and I think it will be poured out. If Doma is kicked then this is how it should be. Each state will be moved by changing public views to a new position. The social issue will be settled in society, which is the way its heading now. Have SCOTUS decide it and it risks being locked as a point of contention.
You never said "countries", you said "nations". In which case the Roman Empire, the Zunis and the Igbos qualify as "nations" at that particular time.
If you prefer, the author of the book goes into many others cases later in the book, including some from Imperial Egypt, Imperial China, Greece and even some early-Catholic Church "marriage" rituals for same sex couples.
Frazzled wrote: Please show the nation that had same sex marriages prior.
While I'm ok (as in don't care at all) you need to defeat the argument.
I'm thinking SCOTUS may actually go NO on this, that states should be able to decide, but that marriages that are legally enacted in one state must be accepted in other states.
I disagree that's how it'll go...
This is a prime example of how "Separation of Church and State" can be strengthen by ruling that the word "marriages and it's religious connotation" are disbarred from public documents, and henthforth called simply "civil unions". PRIVATELY, call it a "marriage" if you want... but, on the legal documents, it's a civil union.
What this will do, is ensure equal protection of the law AND neuter the religious fundies' opposition.
Also, trying to forecast the SC's rulings based on arguments is a fools errand frazzled.
whembly wrote: This is a prime example of how "Separation of Church and State" can be strengthen by ruling that the word "marriages and it's religious connotation" are disbarred from public documents, and henthforth called simply "civil unions". PRIVATELY, call it a "marriage" if you want... but, on the legal documents, it's a civil union.
I'm failing to see why it can't be called "marriage" everywhere, since that is what it is. After all, plenty of religious followers of "traditional" religions believe their religion is perfectly compatible with same sex marriage...
You know, since this is apparently all about "tradition" and not straight up discrimination...
whembly wrote: This is a prime example of how "Separation of Church and State" can be strengthen by ruling that the word "marriages and it's religious connotation" are disbarred from public documents, and henthforth called simply "civil unions". PRIVATELY, call it a "marriage" if you want... but, on the legal documents, it's a civil union.
I'm failing to see why it can't be called "marriage" everywhere, since that is what it is. After all, plenty of religious followers of "traditional" religions believe their religion is perfectly compatible with same sex marriage...
You know, since this is apparently all about "tradition" and not straight up discrimination...
Because, then... the religious fundies won't have an argument. (they'll screetch, bitch and moan... but legally? Stick a fork in it).
Ruling such a way... at the the end of the day... everyone would be EXACTLY equal.
Who gives a gak if the word "Marriage" isn't the legal document?
*God made a marriage between Adam And eve... Or so God told Moses from his burning bush... But at this point of Genesis being Narrated to Moses, Secular Marriage had existed in many forms already. So Until this point, there was no Decree from God on Sanctity of the institution of marriage.
*Jesus was asked about his views on Marriage and the secular laws of society at the time they were living in where upon he gave his speech where people hang their hat on the Man and Woman thing. (where he acknowledges Homosexuality is not a choice and people are Naturally born that way)
So just because Christianity (or at the time Judaism) has a more strict moral requirement, doesn't mean they exclusively get to control what society as a whole deems it to be, especially since it existed within society way before the Abrahamic religions attached extra significance to it.
Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Putting on my Nostradomus hat, I can see Kennedy ruling in favor of 1& 2 along with the 4 other liberal Justices (making it a temp 5-4 favor ruling). Then, CJ Roberts, realizing that this is the outcome, will change his vote in favor (making it a 6-3 ruling)... then, using his "Chief Justice" powah, grants himself the writer of the ruling, and hand down my wishlist above.
Grey Templar wrote: Care to point out how that isn't treating everyone equally?
Because marriage is not about individuals, but couples. Marriage provides tangible legal benefits to couples.
Yes, and everyone is perfectly equal in that. Any man can marry any women, and any women can marry any man, to form a couple.
How is that not perfectly equitable?
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you being willfully ignorant?. Because your argument is what it best described as "insane troll logic".
I read what you wrote.
Yes, the government gives benefits to couples. And everyone has an equal chance to be a couple. Men can marry women, and women can marry men. Again, what isn't equitable about that?
Okay, for the purpose of answering your question, imagine that Splendid McAwesome is an incredibly awesome man that everyone wants to marry.
Testosterone McBeard, who is male, cannot marry Splendid McAwesome.
But Estrogen McBoobs, who is female, can marry Splendid McAwesome.
How is this being equal?
But that is not all there is. Now consider Perfect McAwesome (no relation), who is a woman.
Testosterone McBeard, who is male, can marry Perfect McAwesome.
But Estrogen McBoobs, who is female, cannot marry Perfect McAwesome.
Yet more inequality!
It absolutely is. That's why the 1st amendment protects many forms of hate as long as they're not considered "fighting words" or cause "imminent harm."
See the ruling in favor of Westboro as the most recent substantiation of that.
The "passage of time", "millenia of man on woman" anti-gay marriage argument doesn't hold any weight for me.
If we are to accept the premise, all it shows is that homosexuals have not enjoyed access to the institution of marriage for a very long time, and nothing at all about whether they should or should not be allowed access to that institution today.
As a similar example, women have been disenfranchised in most societies throughout history, but that's no reason to bar women from voting and owning property today.
jasper76 wrote: As a similar example, women have been disenfranchised in most societies throughout history, but that's no reason to bar women from voting and owning property today.
jasper76 wrote: As a similar example, women have been disenfranchised in most societies throughout history, but that's no reason to bar women from voting and owning property today.
Lies! Won't somebody think of the tradition!
We need to bring it back into the school and homes
jasper76 wrote: As a similar example, women have been disenfranchised in most societies throughout history, but that's no reason to bar women from voting and owning property today.
Lies! Won't somebody think of the tradition!
We need to bring it back into the school and homes
I'd like to bring back scapegoating, like literal scapegoating. If I do seomthing wrong, the state should punish a goat.
We need to bring it back into the school and homes
No arguments from me there.
As to the topic, I cannot recall a single argument against SSM that wasn't based in or tangentially related to religion. If we are to believe that there is in fact a separation of Church and State, then barring SSM is indeed a violation of the Constitution.
Personally, the ONLY state involvement in any marriage should be at the office of licensing where the whole point of a license is to ensure that there is no blatantly abusive situation (ie, someone too young to decide on their own)
We need to bring it back into the school and homes
No arguments from me there.
As to the topic, I cannot recall a single argument against SSM that wasn't based in or tangentially related to religion. If we are to believe that there is in fact a separation of Church and State, then barring SSM is indeed a violation of the Constitution.
Personally, the ONLY state involvement in any marriage should be at the office of licensing where the whole point of a license is to ensure that there is no blatantly abusive situation (ie, someone too young to decide on their own)
Forgot to add the "Tradition" part to the paddle posts.
I can see the tradition angle
I can see the bucking the establishment angle
I can see the religious angle
I can see the non religious angle
I be surprise if SCOTUS say "Separation of Church and State" and throws it back to the States
Frazzled wrote: Both justices argued tradition was man/woman. Again, please cite a nation state where there was otherwise. Its a hard argument to overturn. At least two members of the court are saying -with strength-that this is not an issue that should be decided by fiat, but at the state level. Frankly that argument holds the most merit.
There’s about 50 countries right now with fully legal polygamy. Almost all of them are Islamic, but there’s a few others as well.
What’s interesting, and that I didn’t know before I double checked the number above, is that a few Western countries that won’t grant polygamist marriages, but will accept polygamist marriages created in other countries. Which supports your suggested middle ground that the court might find – no state is required to grant gay marriages, but will have to accept gay marriages formed in other states.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: This is a prime example of how "Separation of Church and State" can be strengthen by ruling that the word "marriages and it's religious connotation" are disbarred from public documents, and henthforth called simply "civil unions". PRIVATELY, call it a "marriage" if you want... but, on the legal documents, it's a civil union.
The argument fails completely because 'marriage' is not a term owned by any religion, and in fact no religion has ever tried to claim ownership of it before. Right now two atheists can apply for a marriage certificate, have it performed without any mention of God by a person who is no way part of any church, and none of that is complained about by religious people.
Steve loves Jane, Jane loves Steve, and Bob loves both of them, and both Jane and Steve love Bob.
If it is legal for Jane to marry Steve, but not Bob, then this is discrimination based on nothing except the gender of the parties involved, which is already a violation of several Federal laws.
The reason why the argument is invalid is because it is based on a logical fallacy.
The argument presupposes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, then says that all men and women have equal right to that union. But marriage is not necessarily a union between a man and a woman.
As long as being married confers legal status to the partners of the union (Medical, Pension, Financial etc) then it should be open to all.
Anything else is discriminatory, you can't really argue against that.
With any luck the justices will see sense, vote yes, and then the US can get on with more important things.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why the argument is invalid is because it is based on a logical fallacy.
I think the problem is more that it attempts to use abstract logic to explain and justify legal rights. By looking at things entirely in terms of what people can and cannot legally do, with no regard for what people actually want to do, the argument works.
By the same logic government could pass a law tomorrow saying it's okay to kick government buildings with your bare feet, and claim that we have had our freedoms extended. We would, of course, be free to do something that wasn't legal the day before. But in terms of real freedom nothing will have changed, because no-one wants to run around kicking brick walls with their bare feet.
So, obviously, real freedom involves the freedom to do what people actually want to do. And so when looking at gay marriage we have to consider who is free to do what they want, and who is not. In this case a straight person is free to marry the person they love, whereas a gay person cannot marry the person they love. One person clearly has a freedom the other lacks.
So apparently the argument against allowing marriage equality is that it will lead to 900,000 more abortions.
If that's the nonsense their using to argue against it, let me be the first to Welcome the US to the countries that support marriage equality. You might have needed the courts to be your moral guidance, but you made it.
sirlynchmob wrote: So apparently the argument against allowing marriage equality is that it will lead to 900,000 more abortions.
If that's the nonsense their using to argue against it, let me be the first to Welcome the US to the countries that support marriage equality. You might have needed the courts to be your moral guidance, but you made it.
He's referencing the Buddhist monk that did the same in Vietnam to protest against the government.
Album cover of Rage Against the Machine so its pretty much everyone seen
a Buddhist monk named Thich Quang Duc calmly sat down in the middle of a street in South Vietnam in front of the Cambodian Embassy, while a fellow monk poured gasoline over his head. A moment later, he set himself on fire.
He was protesting the systemic religious discrimination against Buddhists by the Roman Catholic regime of dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. Although Catholics were very much a minority in the country, they enjoyed majority status and privileges. Buddhists were not allowed to practice their religion in public, serve in the army, and were routinely discriminated against.
When, on May 9th, 1963 9 unarmed Buddhists in Hue, South Vietnam attempted to fly a Buddhist flag on Phat Dan, the birthday of Gautama Buddha, they were shot dead in the street by the dictator’s Catholic army. This incident, which Diem blamed on the Viet-Cong, incited the major protests and civil disobedience among the country’s Buddhist population, known as the Buddhist Crisis.
Psienesis wrote: He also said he would do this if he didn't have a strongly-held religious belief against suicide, so it was empty rhetoric in the first place.
Which is especially ironic because if he wouldn't have this strongly-held religious belief that keeps him from acting out his wish to act as the fuel for a communal BBQ he most likely wouldn't give a damn about these "evil" courts.
