At SCOTUSblog, here.
"The [petitioners] had said they were looking to 'join the institution of marriage.' The chief objected that perhaps they were not looking to redefine it, not join it. And he emphasized that he had looked up all the definitions he could find, and it was always a man and a woman..."
"Justice Kennedy said he had 'a word on his mind .. and that word is millennia'... He pointed out that the definition of marriage had prevailed for millennia and it seemed a fast change; on the other hand, he noted that the time between Lawrence and this case was about equal to the time between Brown and Loving -- this raised the question for him of whether this might all be too fast to redefine such a long standing institution."
So Roberts and Kennedy are thinking in terms of redefining the word.
Justice Scalia started a discussion about whether "a minister who objects to same sex marriages could refuse to perform a civil same-sex wedding" and seemed satisfied with the argument that First Amendment rights would protect the minister.
The SCOTUSblog writer notes the contrast between the Justices who stressed "the 'millennia long' definition of marriage" and those who forefronted "the relatively new character of egalitarian marriage." Also, there was "a kind of quirky historical dispute about whether ancient societies with their heterosexual definition of marriage could not be trusted (because they generally discriminated against gays and lesbians), or whether they could be, because they were generally more open to homosexuality outside the marriage context (Alito asked this question about Ancient Greece)."
April 28, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
92 comments:
Pretty soon marriage will mean ham sandwich.
If you allow ketchup on a hot dog, what next?
If marriage is divorced from it's roots of protecting the union of a man and woman in a reproductive relationship, it will be redefined into meaninglessness. An anodyne union between "two people" is not a standard that can be easily defended. If it is merely a legal relationship between two people of whatever gender, why must it be limited to two? "Marriage" will become nothing more than a dry legal formula, akin to incorporating.
If they decide "no", doesn't that kind open the polygamy floodgates?
Precious. They see themselves as doers of the creative work for government Newspeak. And it will only take five votes to do it.
I prefer saying marriage is whatever the partners say it is. Let them Marry a pet or a robot that they can control.
"So Roberts and Kennedy are thinking in terms of redefining the word."
They'll get over it because I have it on good authority that the case will be decided on the basis of precedent. And because, as we all know, government has no legitimate interest in limiting marriage to male-female unions.
I think you meant:
"The chief objected that perhaps they were XnotX looking to redefine it, not join it"
Its just like "home run". Still has the same effect on the score but its not the same thing.
Marriage will become a legal union defined by the state that both parties willingly enter into and can be performed by someone licensed by the state. Given the general anti-religion view of the left, it will be hard for religious personnel to gain license to perform marriages in a religious setting as it would be viewed as state endorsement of religion. If you want a religious wedding, then fine, but you'll have to have a separate process to make it a legal union.
Pre-marital agreements will be required as part of the process so that divorce can be made simple and easily executed if either party doesn't wish to remain in the marriage. Forcing someone one to remain in a marriage unwillingly will be viewed as akin to imprisonment.
However, a lot of legal money is going to be pissed away geting there.
nd seemed satisfied with the argument that First Amendment rights would protect the minister.
Tell that to the cake bakers.
I won't buy into the promise that the clergy will be exempt from performing same sex marriages if it's against their religious beliefs. That's just the next case about same sex marriage the Supreme Court will hear. I might have believed it but a few bakers, photographers, and florists later I just don't.
I'm with PB - "ketchup on a hot dog" is an abomination.
It could be required that one of the partners declare himself/herself to have the soul of a man/woman?
My question is, why do the states continue to issue any marriage licenses?
Rather than be forced to include queers, just get out of the business all together.
OT, Breaking: The Iranians have seized a US associated ship in the gulf.
#Maersk Tigris cargo ship w/US crew detained near Iran. According to @ReutersWorld Iranian forces have boardet the ship. #breaking #Iran #US
Rather than be forced to include queers, just get out of the business all together.
Because an entire bureaucracy is supported by those licenses. Bureaucracies don't just vanish.
We've redefined marriage already. It has become a self serving and selfish institution. Redefining marriage in the 60s and 70s to allow for no-fault divorce because someone wasn't "happy" was supposed to make everything better. Tell me, were the kids alright after that redefinition?
We allowed the fudging of birth certificates because someone was embarrassed that they needed a sperm donation. How did saving the adults the embarrassment of the truth work out for the kids? Should a child be satisfied with their history when two mothers are listed on their birth certificate?
Why is it so scandalous to say that children are best served when they are born to a married couple who are biologically their parents? Does that mean I hate married people who don't have kids? Does that mean that I hate people who adopt? Does the government have an interest in promoting the perpetuation of the species or is it really only about love?
A tweet said the price for a seat at the small courtroom where comparable to NCAA championship tickets.
I don't follow basketball so I don't have a bracket.
Although I did stand up for sir Charles Barkley last night.
"Justice Scalia started a discussion about whether "a minister who objects to same sex marriages could refuse to perform a civil same-sex wedding" and seemed satisfied with the argument that First Amendment rights would protect the minister." Hah - It's only a matter of time (days, minutes) till the gay mafia demands the termination of tax-free status for churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
@Douglas.
Yup. Never mind what will happen to a non-clergy marriage commissioner or the like who nonetheless has religious beliefs.
So Scalia is satisfied with a 1st amendment that ONLY protects clergy?
The secret here is that a gender neutral Government institution is not as neutral towards other sources of authority as they pretend to be. The SCOTUS will redefine Marriage as the last nail in the coffin of patriarchal Authority claims called fatherhood.
Speaking of word definitions, "Family" means "a Fatherhood."
Fathers are what boys and girls seek, The Government jumps in and says We Are Fathers, but everyone knows it's a lie.
"Oral arguments in same sex marriage cases..."
What to do if you see a gay couple quarrel... the more you know.
My question is, why do the states continue to issue any marriage licenses?
PB has it right. It's not the government that will got out of the marriage business, it's the churches.
Faith based marriages (or anything "religious") now stand outside the interests of the State.
Think about that.
There another solution-
Elect Hillary...
“And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.
Alignment...
"or whether they could be, because they were generally more open..."
I get the sense they are just stalling, running out the clock, it's a slam duck.
When you redefine the word, you make its old meaning inaccessible.
I'd start by redefining pi to 22/7 exactly and see how that works out.
Equal treatment for rationals.
And here I thought the purpose of the supreme court was to determine whether or not a right was in the constitution and if so, have those rights been violated?
Of course, everyone knows there is no right to marriage in the constitution. None whatsoever.
So we have to play another game completely, and redefine the role of the Supreme Court.
They'd be wise to reject this 9-0 and say, "Are you joking? There's nothing even remotely approaching a right to marry in the US Constitution. Scram."
But they aren't wise, and this is one of those clear signs that no one sees until it's too late.
So we have to play another game completely, and redefine the role of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court "redefined" it's role in Marbury v Madison
The difference is that the Court has been reluctant to wield the Supreme Power it gave itself in that case.
Like with any government entity, it's not the institution that is broken. It's the people charged with the execution of it's duties.
Tradition!
It seems to me that slavery could be justified by an appeal to "tradition." Not to mention subjugation of women, infanticide, FSM, MSM and Darwin-knows what other sins against the individual.
What we need is a SCOTUS case in which singles, like two sisters, sue the state for rights equal to those 1000 enjoyed by married folk. Then the Supremes could declare civil marriage null and void altogether.
My question is, why do the states continue to issue any marriage licenses?
If you want them issued by Washington instead, how is that any better?
If you don't want them issued by government at any level, how do you decide who is and who isn't eligible for things like the spousal estate-tax exemption at issue in Windsor?
jimbino said...
It seems to me that slavery could be justified by an appeal to "tradition."
Then you are evil.
On the other hand, it could be considered constitutional ( up until the 13th amendment ) because, well, it was.
I would argue that writings on marriage always referred to a man and a woman not because the writer had made a careful analysis of what sort of people the term "marriage" should refer to, but simply because that's what made up a marriage. The writer was reflecting reality, not his own thoughts.
Which is to say, that observation is far less meaningful than it appears at first glance and should not have much probative value. So too the "traditional marriage" argument, of which there is no such thing.
No mention of the legal issue, i.e., how in the world can the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, have included homosexual marriage, hidden all these years??????
The institution of marriage between one man and one woman, a couple, is, for other than secular and moral purposes, founded on the basis of evolutionary fitness/function, human dignity, and both the observed and self-evident knowledge of human procreation.
The process of transsexual reproduction requires either the exploitation of a womb bank or sperm depositor, which became popular, even fashionable, and normalized with the so-called "sexual revolution". If anything, trans-equality is more about trans-heterosexuality, including perpetual bachelorhood (i.e. Peter Pan syndrome), and those men and women who choose abortion and later medical intervention to compensate for consequences that stem from delays caused through the pursuit of the secular profits of wealth, pleasure, and leisure.
That said, transsexual marriage does not represent a so-called "slippery slope", but rather a requirement to follow it in order to capriciously avoid creating moral hazards. Other than with a pro-choice or selective exclusionary policy, the trans-equality movement necessarily requires us to revisit the normalization of other dysfunctional and unconventional orientations and behaviors.
how do you decide who is and who isn't eligible for things like the spousal estate-tax exemption at issue in Windsor?
If marriage is malleable enough to encompass same-sex relationships, it is malleable enough to encompass parent-child relationships. And if we are redefining the essence of marriage to simply be a loving relationship, then it is even more rational to extend it to parent-child relationships than to those who were previously strangers.
In the brave new world of same-sex marriage, in order to fulfill the duty of competent representation, any estate lawyer should be counselling their elderly widowed clients to marry one or more of their children so as to benefit from the marriage exclusion.
In the brave new world of same-sex marriage, any opposition to daddy-daughter and mommy-son and daddy-son and mommy-daughter marriages can only be attributed to irrational bigotry and thus must be rejected.
What the Supreme Court is discussing isn't a cause, or a right, or an institution. It is participating in a symbolic ritual over a symbol.
This is just a minor manifestation of an underlying reality.
The reality is that the future is those rioters in Baltimore.
It seems to me that slavery could be justified by an appeal to "tradition."
Slavery was justified by economics. It's a better use of a defeated people to enslave them than to kill them.
With free markets and property rights this was no longer true. A slave does more working in his own interest in a free market than he does being a slave.
So slavery died. The attempts at retaining it used more desperate and easily defeated arguments, tradition being one.
Economics was the solid argument, and it expired.
Aldous Huxley had it right. Grow people in test tubes.
Eventually these old white men will be gone from the SCOTUS and replaced by Wise Latinas. Then we will have nirvana on earth.
Marriage isn't one man one woman. It's man and woman. Polygamy counts as marriage, just an illegal one.
The constellation of relationships is man/woman in both cases, in how it works and how it fails.
Redefining marriage to mean "2 consenting adults" not "1 man, 1 woman" may or may not be a good idea.
But, this should be done by the people, not the courts. There's no constitutional right to this redefinition.
Basil:
The Fourteenth Amendment does not recognize class rights, including establishment of couples and couplets. It also does not recognize other orientations and behaviors, and sets no precedent to proscribe or normalize them. In fact, the Constitution only implicitly recognizes one relationship: couple, in its preamble when it records a second party: Posterity. It is an amendment which affirms individual rights, but, curiously, and for the first time, excludes women's constitutional right to vote and be counted.
Nobody is going to say it, so I might as well go ahead.
Bruce Jenner is the answer. A man and a woman of the same sex.
It's been there, right under our noses all along.
Thanks Bruce... some day you will get the recognition you and you alone deserve.
Put aside the word "marriage" for a moment.
Is an inherently sterile male-male relationship (or female-female) the same as, or similarly situated with, the inherently potentially procreative male-female conjugal relationship? Or are there fundamental, essential, unbridgable differences between the two?
Slavery could indeed have been justified by tradition (at least back when it was a tradition)-- IF rational-basis scrutiny under the 14th Amendment were the only legal obstacle it had to clear. This may be why they went to the trouble of enacting a separate amendment specifically outlawing it.
Slavery could not and cannot be justified with tradition. The nation's charter, The Declaration of Independence, explicitly forbade this practice. It was only with the original compromise that was necessary for a fledgling nation to confront the threat of alien and internal disruptive forces that slavery was tolerated in order to preserve the union.
The other tradition is no longer in force. Specifically, the Israelite government under God's rule, which established a regulated indentured servitude. Today, America was founded in service to God, but not under God's direction or leadership other than implicitly in following the myths and religion (i.e. moral philosophy) recorded and passed from our ancestors.
The SCOTUSblog writer notes the contrast between the Justices who stressed "the 'millennia long' definition of marriage" and those who forefronted "the relatively new character of egalitarian marriage." Also, there was "a kind of quirky historical dispute about whether ancient societies with their heterosexual definition of marriage could not be trusted (because they generally discriminated against gays and lesbians), or whether they could be, because they were generally more open to homosexuality outside the marriage context (Alito asked this question about Ancient Greece)."
Glorified ambulance-chasers doing philology, history and philosophy. Our tax dollars at work.
Look at all of the people here whining about how the government is about to redefine marriage while complaining how it should be defined. The world is ending for one group who doesn't get to use the government monopoly on force to make everyone live in their world anymore. The other group is drooling over newly gained abilities to stick it to the other side.
For all of the traditional marriage supporters here you had chances at the end when the tide was turning to get the government out of it. In 2008 you still had Barry and Hillary saying they were on your side. But you used your power to exclude. Now the tide has turned and you are getting it good and hard.
If there was a shred of self awareness in you people you would learn the government is not the best way to enforce cultural norms. It is your church that should be the center of your community. Your insistence in conformity to state dictates will not be fun for you in a minority position. We are all going to pay for your short sightedness now.
I just heard on the radio there was an outburst from one of the attendees.
@n.n.The institution of marriage between one man and one woman, a couple, is, for other than secular and moral purposes, founded on the basis of evolutionary fitness/function, human dignity, and both the observed and self-evident knowledge of human procreation.
Then why is polygamy so widespread and ancient?
@rhhardin:Slavery was justified by economics. It's a better use of a defeated people to enslave them than to kill them.
It never was. Slaves were lazy and slaves stole and they might just kill you in the night.
There was never a slave economy that did better than a free economy, though slaveowners certainly did well out of it, they did it by concentrating the benefits of slavery and socializing its costs. Rent-seekers always do well.
In modern times slave labor was largely practiced in Communist countries, and that argument was given--who'd go to Siberia to lay track if we didn't use prisoners--but the state always lost money on GULAG, and the White Sea canal had to be built over again.
"Justice Kennedy said he had 'a word on his mind .. and that word is 'millennia' "
It seems the justices discuss everything and anything except the words that are actually in the U.S. Constitution.
As they must, since that document has nothing to say on the subject of marriage.
Well, there's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to marry. But there is some language in there guaranteeing equal protection of law.
Now, the Republicans and conservatives benefitted from that equal protection argument when SCOTUS stopped the selective recounting in Bush v. Gore.
Are you going to argue that if we are going to extend the benefit of law to heterosexual couples, that same sex couples are not entitled to that equal benefit, and that lack of entitlement to the benefit of laws encouraging and incentivizing marriage does not rise to the level of an equal protection claim?
n.n claimed: " The nation's charter, The Declaration of Independence, explicitly forbade this practice."
No it didn't.
Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence denounced slavery. But the Southern colonies made him delete that paragraph in exchange for their votes.
The Declaration of Independence, as finally ratified, does not condemn slavery.
What are you trying to say, Achilles? Is there a threat in there somewhere? Are you trying to say that people can't have differing opinions free from repercussion? Please explain.
Jason asks;
Are you going to argue that if we are going to extend the benefit of law to heterosexual couples, that same sex couples are not entitled to that equal benefit
Did you mean to write that polygamous couples are not entitled to?
Did you mean to write that incestuous couples are not entitled to?
Did you mean to write that beastiality couples are not entitled to?
Basil said...
"No mention of the legal issue, i.e., how in the world can the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, have included homosexual marriage, hidden all these years??????"
Exactly. The 14th Amendment added no "new" rights--- only enumerated the rights already there--- that is well held Constitutional law.
Marriage was not a "right" enumerated in the Constitution, therefore "equal protection" is not a valid argument for the allowance of gay "marriage".
Yet "law prof" blinded by loyalty to her gay son can't see it Constitutional relativism killed the Republic.
Should the dykes on the SCOTUS recuse?
Gabriel
Then why is polygamy so widespread and ancient?
Because women needed to be taken care of. A widow, or an abandoned woman, or a woman with no family, etc, couldn't care for herself. There were men stronger than she who would take advantage. There were no food stamps. No welfare programs. Nothing.
Get married, or live in abject poverty, were pretty much your options.
Get married, or live in abject poverty, were pretty much your options.
I reject the former, along with Jesus and St Paul, for the stupidity of it, but the gummint continues to impoverish me by tax, inheritance, insurance and other laws that force singles to subsidize marriage.
Jimbino,
The Apostle Paul was likely married before he became a Christian. All members of the Sanhedren were required to be married and we was likely a member due to his level of power and leadership.
Christ wasn't married to a woman. However, we are His bride and He is the bridegroom. Which is why He never married.
Not only did Christ encourage marriage, but he scolded those who thought divorce was legitimate. He even said that while divorce was legit for infidelity, it's better to stay married.
For opponents of polygamous marriage, it would be a good idea to push for a constitutional amendment banning it. If you want to lock in a tradition, you need to do it early.
Fabi said...
What are you trying to say, Achilles? Is there a threat in there somewhere? Are you trying to say that people can't have differing opinions free from repercussion? Please explain.
As long as you allow the definition of marriage to be whatever a majority of voters decides it is you are at the whom of the majority. Right now traditional marriage advocates have put themselves at the mercy of the ssm crowd because they decided to force their views on the minority when they were in power but now the shoe is on the other foot.
Eventually conservatives will put their faith in the church rather than government and become libertarians. Until then they will be winning a lot and we will all Suffer the tyranny of the majority.
I'm with PB - "ketchup on a hot dog" is an abomination.
Yup
We've redefined marriage already. It has become a self serving and selfish institution. Redefining marriage in the 60s and 70s to allow for no-fault divorce because someone wasn't "happy" was supposed to make everything better. Tell me, were the kids alright after that redefinition?
We allowed the fudging of birth certificates because someone was embarrassed that they needed a sperm donation. How did saving the adults the embarrassment of the truth work out for the kids? Should a child be satisfied with their history when two mothers are listed on their birth certificate?
Let me logically follow this.
You own a car. The car runs OK, but not great. Since it doesn't run great, just junk it and don't drive. Is that a fair comparison?
The kids are not alright for the reasons you mention. Making them worse by tinkering with this even more isn't going to make them better.
Did you mean to write that polygamous couples are not entitled to?
Sure. I have a lot less reservation about poly marriage than I do about Same Sex marriage. It certainly has a long track record. It leaves too many men uncoupled and that can cause problems. Other than that I don't have a big moral issue with it.
"Did you mean to write that incestuous couples are not entitled to?
I think it's relatively easy for the state to argue it has a compelling interest in not recognizing incestuous couples, for the same reason it can prohibit abusive tax shelters. For example, even now, a creative tax planner could advise an elderly wealthy couple with children from a previous marriage to divorce, and marry one another's children. Boom - assets pass tax free to next generation. No estate tax.
Did you mean to write that beastiality couples are not entitled to?
Well, let's call both parties to the stand and have them demonstrate informed consent. I don't think you can. So that's a pretty obvious speed bump on the slippery slope to Dogs-And-Cats-Living-Together-Ville.
I Callahan,
I completely agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the argument against SSM was lost back in the 70s when marriage ceased to be about children and began to be about adult feelings.
Look at most of the comments here---they deal with tax implications and inheritance. Tax breaks aren't given out because the Federal government is fond of married people, it's because the Federal Government is fond of future taxpayers and tries to encourage behavior that produces future taxpayers. Oh, but what about those poor kids whose parents can't be married because they happen to be two women or two men? Doesn't it make them feel illegitimate? Yeah, I'm sure the fact that their moms aren't married is the sole focus of their neuroses...
Are you going to argue that if we are going to extend the benefit of law to heterosexual couples, that same sex couples are not entitled to that equal benefit
Not me. Which is why I oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions, with all of the protections, rights, and responsibilities of marriage.
Jason writes;
I think it's relatively easy for the state to argue it has a compelling interest in not recognizing incestuous couples, for the same reason it can prohibit abusive tax shelters. For example, even now, a creative tax planner could advise an elderly wealthy couple with children from a previous marriage to divorce, and marry one another's children. Boom - assets pass tax free to next generation. No estate tax.
So, they aren't entitled to their rights under the constitution because of taxes?
That's weird. Even religions, who have a 1st amendment right, are entitled to skip out on taxation because rights trump taxes.
Well, let's call both parties to the stand and have them demonstrate informed consent.
This is an excellent point. I await your defense of forbidding those with mental retardation from ever getting married. Good luck with that.
Sure. I have a lot less reservation about poly marriage than I do about Same Sex marriage. It certainly has a long track record. It leaves too many men uncoupled and that can cause problems. Other than that I don't have a big moral issue with it.
Nor do a lot of those who support gay sex marriage.
But they felt free to lie to us in the beginning and pretend like they did have an issue with it.
Thanks, Birches. Sometimes the theme gets lost in the words. Makes perfect sense now.
We could make most of this go away if we eliminated income taxes and went to a national sales tax. The rest is simply estate planning.
I await your defense of forbidding those with mental retardation from ever getting married.
Are they able to express informed consent? Can they agree to contracts? If a salesman sold them a Shoe of the Month Contract would it be binding? If not, then they can't agree to marriage.
I have no problem holding that you must be mentally competent to enter a contract if you are to enter a marriage. I say this as someone with several years of direct care for mentally disabled adults under my belt.
No, a guardian can't sign off on it, either, and still be a guardian, because that would abrogate his or her guardianship rights and responsibilities. We're going to give up sexual rights to our charge to another guardian? Or another retarded individual?
I love them, but most of them have to be watched with pets, let alone spouses.
So, no, no problem whatsoever with prohibiting the mentally disabled from getting married... with some mechanism for someone who is not all that disabled to petition.
So, they aren't entitled to their rights under the constitution because of taxes?
Sure. More broadly, because of a compelling government interest.
After all, you have a right to the fruits of your own labor. But the government also has a right to tax it.
You have a natural right to smoke pot. The government has a compelling right (in its view, and thus far upheld by courts) to control mind-altering substances. So certain freedoms are abridged.
This isn't difficult.
Same Sex Marriage doesn't quite raise the same tax avoidance possibilities that incestuous messages do.
Jason wrote:
Well, let's call both parties to the stand and have them demonstrate informed consent. I don't think you can. So that's a pretty obvious speed bump on the slippery slope to Dogs-And-Cats-Living-Together-Ville.
the only problem with that is that you don't need informed animal consent for any interactions. So why would you need one for a marriage. So long as the person who wants to marry their pet gives the a ok why restrict it?
We do have examples of people marrying animals already. For example a woman married a dolphin. Why not carry over said definition of marriage here too?
Jason wrote:
Well, let's call both parties to the stand and have them demonstrate informed consent. I don't think you can. So that's a pretty obvious speed bump on the slippery slope to Dogs-And-Cats-Living-Together-Ville.
the only problem with that is that you don't need informed animal consent for any interactions. So why would you need one for a marriage. So long as the person who wants to marry their pet gives the a ok why restrict it?
We do have examples of people marrying animals already. For example a woman married a dolphin. Why not carry over said definition of marriage here too?
Basil wrote; No mention of the legal issue, i.e., how in the world can the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, have included homosexual marriage, hidden all these years??????
And why would it preclude incestual marriage from protection?
Sebastian wrote:
They'll get over it because I have it on good authority that the case will be decided on the basis of precedent. And because, as we all know, government has no legitimate interest in limiting marriage to male-female unions.
there is a compelling interest in defining marriages as between a man and a woman. Men and women produce the dna that makes the children. And only the male female bond allows biological parents to take care of biological children. That is the ideal relationship, and we want as many kids rasied by natural parents as possible. In addition to be being best for kids, it also doesnt' require outside surrogates.
Promoting the norm above other lesser unions is a compelling govt interst. WE need traditnioanl marriage, gay marriage while pleasant provides no real benefit that rises to that level.
So whats wrong with society promoting the ideal marriage above others?
Well, sex with animals is illegal in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Granted, the locally applicable law isn't not the first thing on my list to look up whenever I travel.
And animals cannot enter into contracts. So no, you can't marry an animal, and marriage with animals is no where near that slippery offramp from Same Sex marriages.
Poly marriage certainly is, though. It's obvious that it is. It's also obvious that people trying to assure us that it's not, that they will oppose poly marriages once we allow same sex marriages are A.) lying, and B.) irrelevant.
Just like the SSM advocates were lying when they said "nooooo! We won't destroy private businesses and sue children out of their homes and education funds," and then enthusiastically did just that.
jr565 said...
" Jason wrote:
Well, let's call both parties to the stand and have them demonstrate informed consent. I don't think you can. So that's a pretty obvious speed bump on the slippery slope to Dogs-And-Cats-Living-Together-Ville.
the only problem with that is that you don't need informed animal consent for any interactions. So why would you need one for a marriage. So long as the person who wants to marry their pet gives the a ok why restrict it?
We do have examples of people marrying animals already. For example a woman married a dolphin. Why not carry over said definition of marriage here too?"
You people need to read these arguments aloud to your kids. When you feel appropriately silly hopefully you will realize who you live/marry/have children with shouldn't be up to majority rule. Get married at your church with your community. Sign appropriate contracts that reflect your beliefs. Stop insisting this has anything to do with federal law or state compelling interest. You are talking about dolphins for gods sake.
@jr565:
""Sebastian wrote: They'll get over it because I have it on good authority that the case will be decided on the basis of precedent. And because, as we all know, government has no legitimate interest in limiting marriage to male-female unions."
there is a compelling interest . . ."
Just to be clear: I was being sarcastic.
on the other hand, you should be happy knowing that a printer of t shirts was sued to make them print gay parade t shirts. yayyyy gayyyys! Tolerance! inclusiveness! Understanding!
Slavery was a millennia old practice too, until the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment (in the U.S.) and other anti-slavery movements worldwide. I don't see a lot of defenders of slavery today, but that institution changed in an instant.
We've been discriminating against gays and lesbians for so long we don't even realize it. It's just the way it is. It's time to challenge this long held assumption that gays and lesbians are somehow less human and not deserving of the most basic of civil rights - right to marry whom you choose.
Blogger LibertarianSafetyGuy said...
Slavery was a millennia old practice too, until the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment (in the U.S.) and other anti-slavery movements worldwide. I don't see a lot of defenders of slavery today, but that institution changed in an instant.
We've been discriminating against gays and lesbians for so long we don't even realize it. It's just the way it is. It's time to challenge this long held assumption that gays and lesbians are somehow less human and not deserving of the most basic of civil rights - right to marry whom you choose.
It changed after a civil war and laws were passed. Not after 5 out of 9 judges decided the founders meant to make slavery illegal in the constitution.
The same thing happened with the women's right to vote. It was changed by the people, not judges.
The fact that we have to prepend 'same-sex' or 'gay' in front of it is proof that marriage has never been about anything else than the union of a man and woman as the basis of society. And, that it is legal to discriminate on the basis of gender for socially-beneficial reasons is proved by gender-specific rest rooms.
Let any two people live however they will, and form legally-binding agreements accordingly. But don't call it what it clearly isn't: marriage.
"The fact that we have to prepend 'same-sex' or 'gay' in front of it is proof that marriage has never been about anything else than the union of a man and woman as the basis of society. And, that it is legal to discriminate on the basis of gender for socially-beneficial reasons is proved by gender-specific rest rooms.
Let any two people live however they will, and form legally-binding agreements accordingly. But don't call it what it clearly isn't: marriage."
The pretended "interracial-marriage" doesn't prove the notion that marriage only exists between a man of the same race as the women. I believe you may be filtering data to make your point.
Damn auto-correct. I meant *prepended, not pretended.
Here is my prediction. The court will not find that there is a constitutional right to marry anyone. But it will find that marriages from one state must be honored by another state or the federal government. This will block the door to polygamy and incest, but allow the slow, democratic march to same-sex marriage to continue, while citing a specific requirement of the Constitution. That, or Roberts will use a creative construction to call the marriage a tax...
Achilles wrote:
"Stop insisting this has anything to do with federal law or state compelling interest. You are talking about dolphins for gods sake."
The dolphin marriage is a real thing. Not in this country but in Europe:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
There's also a cats (again in London, what gives)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2898715/Woman-celebrating-decade-marriage-two-pet-CATS-says-never-happier-no-plans-human-husband.html
And do I think it will be common place for people to start marrying pets? Hardly. I was just questioning the premise that you couldn't marry an animal because it lacks the ability to consent. I can KILL an animal and I don't have to get its consent. I can eat an animal or have it as a pet, and I don't have to get consent. So why would that be an obstacle in marriages? As is shown here.
Do the animals even realize they are married? No. But this is how they define marriage. If marriage is just about marrying who you love (whatever that means, it could be platonic) then why not recognize such marriages?
"Well, sex with animals is illegal in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Granted, the locally applicable law isn't not the first thing on my list to look up whenever I travel.
And animals cannot enter into contracts. So no, you can't marry an animal, and marriage with animals is no where near that slippery offramp from Same Sex marriages. "
marriage isn't about kids anymore. Does it have to involve sex? It's about Love. So, why assume that if you married your cat, you'd have sex with your cat?
This whole idea of consummating marriage assumes that people are going to have sex in the confines of marriage. But do you need to be married to have sex? So then why do we need to consummate marriages?
And again, you've interacted plenty of times with animals. You've probably ate a few animals. Maybe hunted a few. Maybe had them as pets. Since when did you need a contract with an animal to get the benefit of the animal? People think animals are their kids, or members of family. Why then preclude marriage.
We would just be arguing over the contexts of what is allowable as far as interactions with animals.
Post a Comment