Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Very surprised that the SC is taking up this case... and happily so!

Here's the case:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 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?

A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2. The parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting
oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions. The briefs of petitioners are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, February 27, 2015. The briefs of respondents are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2015. The reply briefs are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015.

My guess is that either Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vote against sanctioning SSM or it'll be unanimous in favor. Depending on how the arguments goes...

I see that as something that we can finally put this to bed.

Oh snap!

Well done America.

My problem always come with the particulars of the word marriage.

 Torga_DW wrote:
My problem always come with the particulars of the word marriage.

Well they can (hopefully) be as miserable as any other married folks now

 Desubot wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
My problem always come with the particulars of the word marriage.

Well they can (hopefully) be as miserable as any other married folks now

Hehe, well i'm all for misery. I certainly think they should have equal rights, my problem is literally with the word marriage, and not say union.

The 'word' marriage seems to originate about 1300ad (roughly) http://www.edenics.net/english-word-origins.aspx?word=MARRIAGE which is pre-reformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation . In other words a time when the 'church' (like the empire in star wars) held dominion over such events, with them being a combination of civil and religious union (remember, pre-reformation). The word seems to have evolved into a common one refering to unions in general, but i always look at the specific word marriage itself as a religious union. I don't agree with the christian stance on homosexuality, but i can see from a religious point of view how such a thing being forced into law might upset them. It seems to be a big ****fight as far as discussion goes, so i'll just say good for them, equal rights is always a good thing.

No one owns marriage. Anyone of any religion, or no religion, can get married, so why should the bible saying it be between man and a woman be of relevance? The practice has been carried out for thousands of years with different ceremonies. When Christians or any other group insist that their definition of marriage is the most correct one for the whole of society to live by, they are taking proprietary of a term they don't have exclusivity on.

The same way the word 'christian' can or can't be owned i guess. All i know is that when i see the usual arguments about marriage on tv, the religious guy says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman (in the sight of god)". Everyone then goes on to focus on the 'man and woman' part of it, and ignores the 'union' part of it. But as i said, the word seems to have changed (or at least for some people and not others) so it ends up being a ****fight when discussed.

It always seemed to me that marriage was a particular type of union, one related to the christian religion. Thats why the origin of the word is important, before the ~1300s there were no marriages if you were english because the word didn't exist.

edit: typo

 Torga_DW wrote:
The same way the word 'christian' can or can't be owned i guess. All i know is that when i see the usual arguments about marriage on tv, the religious guy says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman (in the sight of god)". Everyone then goes on to focus on the 'man and woman' part of it, and ignores the 'union' part of it. But as i said, the word seems to have changed (or at least for some people and not others) so it ends up being a ****fight when discussed.

It always seemed to me that marriage was a particular type of union, one related to the christian religion. Thats why the origin of the word is important, before the ~1300s there were no marriages if you were english because the word didn't exist.

edit: typo

That doesn't mean there weren't marriages, it just means they used a different word for it.

Here is my usual and often repeated reply regarding the whole "why call it marriage" bit, and keep in mind that this comes from a very devout Christian:

1) We have separation of church and state, so "whatever the church calls" it has never been a determining factor for naming anything that the state sanctions.
2) Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/Whatever have administered their versions of the covenant of marriage for many many years, and nobody is saying that they have to change their definition. My marriage is a covenant we made between me, my wife, and our God. Whatever the state definition of marriage is doesn't change the religions definitions.
3) The States have been granting and recognizing non-religious marriages since the first day of our existance. These state marriages have never legally been bound by any religious definitions and many of them were officiated by non-religious people and are between people who have zero interest in religion. By very nature of our separation of church and state these marriages have NEVER had basis on the religious definition and the Wiccans that were married down the street don't really care about whatever definition my God gave regarding marriage. State sanctioned marriage recognizes that me and my wife life together after signing what amounts to a legally binding contract witnessed by said state and now they give us monetary compensation for putting up with each other and gives us legal protections regarding each other and our child. That's really all "marriage" is as far as the state is concerned.

To change the word marriage because of some religious folks, when the word marriage has never had a religious significance and has been a non-religious legal term as far as the state is concerned, is just stupid and achives nothing more than giving in to the kid that is refusing to throw his ball over the fence instead of letting you play with it even though it was never his ball to begin with.

If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing? To go back on the 'christian' word: i can do something that aligns with another religion or no religion at all, and call myself christian and get other people to do the same. If enough people do it, we'll start having 2 groups of 'christian' (or at least 1 more than we do now).

That doesn't mean the 'original' christians won't remember that the word used to pertain to people who practice christianity, or that there won't be arguments and hurt feelings when the two groups come together. If we're accepting that marriage means union and not a specific type of union, then this is a great move for human rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is my usual and often repeated reply regarding the whole "why call it marriage" bit, and keep in mind that this comes from a very devout Christian:

1) We have separation of church and state, so "whatever the church calls" it has never been a determining factor for naming anything that the state sanctions.
2) Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/Whatever have administered their versions of the covenant of marriage for many many years, and nobody is saying that they have to change their definition. My marriage is a covenant we made between me, my wife, and our God. Whatever the state definition of marriage is doesn't change the religions definitions.
3) The States have been granting and recognizing non-religious marriages since the first day of our existance. These state marriages have never legally been bound by any religious definitions and many of them were officiated by non-religious people and are between people who have zero interest in religion. By very nature of our separation of church and state these marriages have NEVER had basis on the religious definition and the Wiccans that were married down the street don't really care about whatever definition my God gave regarding marriage. State sanctioned marriage recognizes that me and my wife life together after signing what amounts to a legally binding contract witnessed by said state and now they give us monetary compensation for putting up with each other and gives us legal protections regarding each other and our child. That's really all "marriage" is as far as the state is concerned.

To change the word marriage because of some religious folks, when the word marriage has never had a religious significance and has been a non-religious legal term as far as the state is concerned, is just stupid and achives nothing more than giving in to the kid that is refusing to throw his ball over the fence instead of letting you play with it even though it was never his ball to begin with.

This is where it gets interesting, as the reformation was basically about taking the church out of certain loops and leaving them in the hands of the secular authorities. So while the word may not currently have religious significance (depending on who you ask), it almost certainly did when it came into being. If find your last sentence highly ironic.

 Torga_DW wrote:

This is where it gets interesting, as the reformation was basically about taking the church out of certain loops and leaving them in the hands of the secular authorities. So while the word may not currently have religious significance (depending on who you ask), it almost certainly did when it came into being. If find your last sentence highly ironic.

Then you need to learn the meaning of the word irony, since nobody except religious people is trying to prevent another group from using a term that has multiple definitions based on who is using it.

In the United States, where this law is currently in the process of being heard at the SCOTUS, the word marriage has been a secular term ever since the first marriage license was granded after this country was founded. Because a secular state has been issuing secular licenses to recognize secular unions and granting secular benefits to these secular unions.

These marriages have been regocnized and valid between two Christians, a Christian and a Jew, A Muslim and a Wiccan, a Satanist and an Atheist, and whatever other religious and non-religious combination you want to name, because it doesn't depend on any religious definition because it is a state granted benefit.

That's nice, I suppose. Don't see much of the point, though. Seems like it would be just as easy (probably easier, actually) to make one blanket category with all the same rights and benefits, shove it under the 'civil union' designation and call it a day. Religious folks (myself included, I suppose) get to keep 'their' word and everyone gets the same rights and protections. No muss, no fuss.

Look at the timeline: when was america founded? When did the reformation happen? What is one of the original items as founded in the bill of rights?

Modern 'happenings' are important, but they're usually based on previous happenings, and the reformation was a pretty big one as far as religion goes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stonebeard wrote:
That's nice, I suppose. Don't see much of the point, though. Seems like it would be just as easy (probably easier, actually) to make one blanket category with all the same rights and benefits, shove it under the 'civil union' designation and call it a day. Religious folks (myself included, I suppose) get to keep 'their' word and everyone gets the same rights and protections. No muss, no fuss.

Probably have to agree on this one, and it seems to be the way things have played out. I don't really have a dog in the fight, i just find it an interesting topic.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Look at the timeline: when was america founded? When did the reformation happen?

Irrelevant, but to humor you:

The United States of America was founded in 1787/88, which places the creation of our secular laws a solid 139 years after the end of the reformation.

What is one of the original items as founded in the bill of rights?

The separation of Church and State, meaning that marriage under the law has had zero relationship to marriage under God since 1787.

Modern 'happenings' are important, but they're usually based on previous happenings, and the reformation was a pretty big one as far as religion goes.

Which has nothing to do with secular laws based by a secular nation and enforced by a secular nation that has a constitutional separation between the secular nation and religions.

 Torga_DW wrote:
If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing?

Well, the Bible mentions marriage and wives and husbands plenty of times. When the Bible was written, it wasn't in English and English as we know it didn't even exist.

 Hordini wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing?

Well, the Bible mentions marriage and wives and husbands plenty of times. When the Bible was written, it wasn't in English and English as we know it didn't even exist.

Lies! They spoke English and looked ggooooooodddddd

 Hordini wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing?

Well, the Bible mentions marriage and wives and husbands plenty of times. When the Bible was written, it wasn't in English and English as we know it didn't even exist.

This is very true. I took a couple of years of Biblical Greek in high school (it was that or Latin and I needed a language requirement. Gotta love classical education...) A lot of how people argue about Christian scripture is solved when you just look at the original document. It's kind of funny really. Nobody can translate the Bible without pushing their personal opinions on what it was saying. Translation is a [female dog] like that.

I'm going to put this "engraved plaque" here for all those who have looked into my post history.
I fully admit to being mildly insane during this period. I had not yet understood "Good taste" or "Logic", and I admit that I had contracted a minor case of Religion.
Please do not consider anything I have posted before my ideology switch an accurate reflection of my personality or beliefs.

Verviedi wrote:
God dammit.

My reaction to most OT posts. Would you like to be more specific about your discontent?

Verviedi wrote:
God dammit.

Calm down and be

Of course the Bible is also very specific about divorce, but nobody has ever argued that we should call non-biblical divorces something else...

 d-usa wrote:
Of course the Bible is also very specific about divorce, but nobody has ever argued that we should call non-biblical divorces something else...

Civil non-union?

 dementedwombat wrote:
This is very true. I took a couple of years of Biblical Greek in high school (it was that or Latin and I needed a language requirement. Gotta love classical education...) A lot of how people argue about Christian scripture is solved when you just look at the original document. It's kind of funny really. Nobody can translate the Bible without pushing their personal opinions on what it was saying. Translation is a [female dog] like that.

Except there are some religious groups that follow the belief that God would not allow a "bad" translation of the Bible, therefore the currently accepted English translations are still the literal word of God, despite any differences with the original texts.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with the SC.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Look at the timeline:

You should do the same, keeping in mind how/when the Church really started "Forcing" people to get married within the church AND paying for the "privilege" of doing so..... Most of what I've read points to around your timeline, so the 1300s (really, I've read from around the end of the Crusades to about Bosworth... so 1450s-1480s, depending on locale) is approximately when the common person was beginning to follow the Nobility's "example" and get married by the priest in the church. For the Nobility before then, this was nothing more than a political stunt.





While I am glad this is being looked at in the SC, and I do sincerely hope this goes the right way.... I know in my head that this ain't over. Even once the SC makes this constitutionally legal, there'll be backwards groups out there still fighting and railing against this "evil"

But, frankly, I wish it were over already... Frankly, I'm as tired of hearing about people coming out as gay as I am "straight" people annoucing they're getting married.

 d-usa wrote:
Here is my usual and often repeated reply regarding the whole "why call it marriage" bit, and keep in mind that this comes from a very devout Christian:

1) We have separation of church and state, so "whatever the church calls" it has never been a determining factor for naming anything that the state sanctions.
2) Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/Whatever have administered their versions of the covenant of marriage for many many years, and nobody is saying that they have to change their definition. My marriage is a covenant we made between me, my wife, and our God. Whatever the state definition of marriage is doesn't change the religions definitions.
3) The States have been granting and recognizing non-religious marriages since the first day of our existance. These state marriages have never legally been bound by any religious definitions and many of them were officiated by non-religious people and are between people who have zero interest in religion. By very nature of our separation of church and state these marriages have NEVER had basis on the religious definition and the Wiccans that were married down the street don't really care about whatever definition my God gave regarding marriage. State sanctioned marriage recognizes that me and my wife life together after signing what amounts to a legally binding contract witnessed by said state and now they give us monetary compensation for putting up with each other and gives us legal protections regarding each other and our child. That's really all "marriage" is as far as the state is concerned.

To change the word marriage because of some religious folks, when the word marriage has never had a religious significance and has been a non-religious legal term as far as the state is concerned, is just stupid and achives nothing more than giving in to the kid that is refusing to throw his ball over the fence instead of letting you play with it even though it was never his ball to begin with.

Have an exalt!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
This is very true. I took a couple of years of Biblical Greek in high school (it was that or Latin and I needed a language requirement. Gotta love classical education...) A lot of how people argue about Christian scripture is solved when you just look at the original document. It's kind of funny really. Nobody can translate the Bible without pushing their personal opinions on what it was saying. Translation is a [female dog] like that.

Except there are some religious groups that follow the belief that God would not allow a "bad" translation of the Bible, therefore the currently accepted English translations are still the literal word of God, despite any differences with the original texts.

Those religious people must have a fun time squaring the circle of the "Adulterous Bible".

I always find it funny how the "literal word of God" or "the only authoritative/correct translation" happens to be in a language the presenter of the argument is capable of understanding.

Prove that there is a) Some supernatural force/being(s), b) That this is your particular god(s), and c) That the particular book you claim is the word of your god(s) is actually the word of your god(s), and then we might think about caring about what it says.

Until then I think we should treat everyone the same and not discriminate against people because of a work of badly written fiction.

IIRC the church started messing with marriage in the 17th century over here. It was after the reformation and in large part because the king (of Sweden) wanted to make his new Protestant church support him by giving them something nice after confiscating lots of property from the Catholic church. Before that marriage was pretty much a civil concern even if one went to the trouble of having a priest bless it.

IMO it's nothing wrong - heteros don't lose anything and no one's forcing us to marry someone of the same sex. And now homosexuals can have fights between spouses - and divorces - just like anyone else. Equality for all.

Who cares how the word may have been originlly intended 700 years ago?

We don't live in the 1300s, and in the intervening 7 centuries, th word has changed meaning, or at least has had meaning added to it

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs