-
Same sex marriage is a right!
Anthony Kennedy writes the majority opinion. 5-4 decision.
States must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
-
78 Replies
-
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.” — Justice Anthony Kennedy-
Meh. Heterosexuals have failed miserably at marriage in general. I doubt the homosexuals will do any better. Its becoming an outdated concept in our “progressive” society.
-
So now I guess people are going to be marrying animals too. Jk
-
No I disagree
Marrying a person of the same gender can never be equated to “marrying an animal” (to use your words)
-
Marriage is not really something from “God” or anything special in any way. Most likely it originated as a mechanism to control men. You see, men are programmed by evolution to spread seed and likely that was the norm for much of human history. Monogamy really makes no sense evolutionarily and therefore must be a human construct. I will confess, however, that I have haven’t studied the history of marriage in depth nor do I care to.
-
Quote from macrophallus
Marriage is not really something from “God” or anything special in any way. Most likely it originated as a mechanism to control men. You see, men are programmed by evolution to spread seed and likely that was the norm for much of human history. Monogamy really makes no sense evolutionarily and therefore must be a human construct. I will confess, however, that I have haven’t studied the history of marriage in depth nor do I care to.
Monogamy makes perfect evolutionary sense. It allows for the creation of a family unit, which protects the human young as they are unable to fend for themselves for years, if not a decade and a half. It removes constant male-male competition for females. With that unit and stability, it allows for the formation of a tribe and eventually city-state and civilization.
I think it makes perfect sense from that standpoint.-
Monogamy reduces genetic potential of each individual, which ultimately is counter to evolution. In terms of biological potential and genetic diversity monogamy doesn’t make a lot of sense. A family unit creation doesn’t really require strict monogamy.
-
Quote from macrophallus
Monogamy reduces genetic potential of each individual, which ultimately is counter to evolution. In terms of biological potential and genetic diversity monogamy doesn’t make a lot of sense. A family unit creation doesn’t really require strict monogamy.
I agree that monogamy reduces genetic potential. No question. However, given the relative poor survivability of human offspring, protection is required to keep that genetic material alive to an age when it too can procreate. Male-Male competition for females can lead to violent conflict. Lack of cohesive protection leads to increased danger of death. The chaos and disorganization that would exist without monogamy in the days of early man would not have allowed for the flourishing of the human species. Thus, by sacrificing the genetic advantage in having random partners, the early humans were able to coexist and build family units and tribes. (By family unit I am not invoking the Christian definition.) By making that sacrifice of randomness, the genetic material was able to survive longer and thus undergo more competitive mutations than if there had been no organization. Civilization is a result of the family unit.
I love discussions like this. Brings me back to my college days and classes on Sociology, Nations, etc. It is very interesting stuff.
Strictly speaking, the most genetically advantageous construct would be multiple males forming a tribe, and each male having more than one spouse or partner (however you want to define it), but those are still monogamous within the family unit. The early males would have to agree to not poach each other’s partners, otherwise there would internal conflict and breakdown in the tribe. When not having to continuously compete for partners, the males and females have more time for thing such as agriculture, hunting, and tending the sick. Again, allowing for greater flourishing of the genetics than if there was just random chaos and constant competition.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from macrophallus
Meh. Heterosexuals have failed miserably at marriage in general. I doubt the homosexuals will do any better. Its becoming an outdated concept in our “progressive” society.
Yea does seem a bit outdated, know a rad in his 70s whose been married 4 times and has to keep working as a result…lesbians may do better, have my doubts about gay men. Knew quite a few while living in NYC, they use to joke that the difference between gay and straight dating was that straight couples will have have 3-4 dinner dates times before sex, gay male couples will have sex 3-4 times before having a dinner date. This was quite a while ago though, seems like straight couples have become equally promiscuous these days-
To @sad rad the jk means just kidding. I put that there because it’s one of the ludicrous arguments you hear in defense of man/woman marriage. I’m happy the court had the common sense to confirm a liberty guaranteed in the constitution.
-
So in Texas it seems the AG is saying local government officials don’t have to issue marriage certificates or oversee gay marriage if it’s against their religious beliefs. If that’s the case and they can’t separate religion and government, does that mean the officials are unfit for duty?
-
What’s the point of the 10th Amendment if no one considers it? It is odd to think that they wrote the 10th Amendment for no reason.
The Constitution isn’t what we want it to be. It is what it is. The only explanation is that no one cares about it, so they just do whatever they want regarding it. That pretty much sums up the situation.
If one can’t answer what the 10th Amendment is for, we shouldn’t even bother ever considering if something is “Constitutional” because we have greater problems, like reading comprehension for supposedly some of the most learned in the country. Or is it that they are that corrupted?
It’s a loser any way you look at it.-
So what about the equal protection clause. How can states deny legal rights to one group of people? The sky is not falling. Hetero married people didn’t lose any rights when gay couples got married.
Trying to own the word marriage is like coffee drinkers trying to own the word mug. I can see that arguments, well mugs are just for coffee, you beer drinkers can call your container a liquid vessel.-
I’m not part of that fight. I don’t care for the state to license any of this anyway, to be certain. I’m just following the Constitution.
Rights are different than privileges, anyway.
Which brings up the question why one can’t marry his sister, again, if both parties are consenting. The comeback answer is the same that the gay side won’t accept when someone answers them.-
You want to marry your sister, cigar, start a campaign. Make the argument why you should be able to.
-
Quote from Cigar
Which brings up the question why one can’t marry his sister, again, if both parties are consenting. The comeback answer is the same that the gay side won’t accept when someone answers them.
The social/legal argument made against sibling is in the prevention of genetic disease passed through offspring.
Since the “procreation” part of marriage has been struck as a legal factor in marriage, I do believe you will in the coming decades see challenges to marriage laws prohibiting sibling marriage.
Same goes for polygamy.
Some for of polygamy will likely be legal by 2050.-
Do many siblings want to get married? I don’t really see anyone fighting for this right. I don’t suspect many people want to marry their sibling.
I don’t really care about polygamy. If you can afford more than 1 wife or husband go for it. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Do many siblings want to get married? I don’t really see anyone fighting for this right. I don’t suspect many people want to marry their sibling.
I don’t really care about polygamy. If you can afford more than 1 wife or husband go for it.
I could envision scenarios in which siblings wanted to get the legal protections/ survivor benefits/ estate tax benefits/etc that marriage provides.
-
I’m actually recalling now an article about a gay man marrying his son. What he did was adopted his boyfriend so they could get benefits I believe. So I guess there’s some gaming of the system but maybe some of those things you mention need some reworking. Like estate taxes. Should you be taxed twice on earning? but that’s whole different conversation.
-
Life imitating art. Anyone remember the final episode of Boston Legal where Denny Crane (William Shatner) married Alan Shore (James Spader) so he could transfer his assets without taxation?
-
I would really like to get some stock into the marriage industry…there is money to be made
but on Sunday my Pastor again ignoring separation of church and state declared:-the battle is on -
It just keeps getting weird and weirder. Now, the “right” doesn’t matter for other people because there are supposedly fewer of them. As if gays aren’t a crazy minority (at best 2%) of the population. A very well connected, wealthy 2% … which is the point. The whole thing is much ado about nothing but goes part and parcel to the decline of the society — bread and circuses while people are distracted and the TPP passes without being revealed or de-“classified”
-
Regarding the issue of sibling marriage, I personally would not be opposed to it if the siblings in question are not biological siblings.
Example – A man wants to marry his sister, but she is a sister who was adopted as a child into his family.
They are not biologically related.
Can they get married?
I’m sure we’ll see a court case related to this very issue in a decade or two somewhere in this country. -
[link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057081/Engaged-couple-discover-brother-sister-parents-meet-days-wedding.html]http://www.dailymail.co.u…meet-days-wedding.html[/link]
Interesting article about how a man and a woman – not knowing they were biological brother and sister – almost got married. -
The whole point is that it exposes the (non)argument, SadRad.
If biology matters, how can you let homosexuals “marry”? That’s the measuring stick for saying siblings can’t.
This one point exposes the whole fraud.
In a world where what we say and feel determines so called reality, nothing makes sense.
You just proved it again. -
Homosexual relationships don’t end up in line-bred children.
-
“If biology matters…”
Sexual biology, as in man/woman does not matter in marriage. That’s the whole point.
The measuring stick for siblings is still genetics. So by that measure if you want to propose that 2 brothers or 2 sisters can then get married, go for it.
The “fraud” is the invention that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Trans-gender proves the lie to that.
-
Nothing in your response makes any sense.
Homosexual relationships don’t end up with children, period. I’m pretty sure there is a genetic aspect of that as well.
Why do you guys fight against reality so hard? -
There are plenty of homosexual marriages with children.
In order to see reality, all you need to do is just open your eyes, you have the reality blindness.
As Colbert said, “Reality has a well known Liberal bias.” I guess that alone explains your willful blindness to reality. -
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-is-the-supreme-courts-duty/2015/07/01/c78a5a2e-1f51-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…411a84c9d55_story.html[/link]
-
I believe in 20-30 years, gays/lesbians can have children.
Here is how:
Take a stem cell from a man’s body – make an egg out of it – fuse it with the sprem cell from his male partner and implant it into a surrogate mother.
Boom – you will have a baby made of the genetic material of two men or two women.
Science just has not gotten there yet, but it will – in our lifetimes I predict.
Uterus transplants are already happening.
I also predict we’ll see a uterus transplanted into a man and see a man carry a baby to term with subsequent c- section – again – within our lifetimes.
You’ll see.
Gender lines will blur more in this century than ever before.
And it’s all good. -
Quote from SadRad
Gender lines will blur more in this century than ever before.
And it’s all good.
I followed along until this last point. I don’t disagree, necessarily, but why do you say “it’s all good”, exactly.
In my mind, “marriage” has always equaled “matrimony”. Again, in my mind, “matrimony” has always been equated with “religion”. As such, I have always thought of marriage as being a religious ceremony, not a government one. I always thought of atheists, agnostics, and non-religious folk who “get married” (in the common parlance) as being united under the government’s approval, the so-called “civil union” or even common law relationship. Marriage is the right of an individual church. I would never want the government to tell a religion who they can and cannot marry. Likewise, I would not want a religion telling the government who can and cannot marry. That interaction was the whole reason for the colonization of the Americas in the first place.
For that reason, I have always felt that if two homosexuals wanted to be united or bonded in the eyes of the government, let them. If two people, any two people, want to be bound under the eyes of the government, they should have the exact rights as anyone else. They should be POA, have inheritance rights, pay the marriage penalty, share benefits, share liabilities, etc. All people, including the religious, should have to apply for approval in the eyes of the government. If the religious (Christian, pagan, Muslim, Jedi, what have you) then want to have a special ceremony, let them. Who cares? If a homosexual church starts up and wants to marry people, let them. Who cares?
I asked my homosexual family member (not yet completely out of the closet, so forgive some bad grammar to hide identification) why they wanted specifically to have a “marriage” as opposed to a “civil union”, if the rights were the same between the two. Their response was they wanted to refer to their spouse as “husband” or “wife”. I found that entirely bizarre, that in today’s society people feel they need to be “married” to label a partner to their satisfaction. I think it speaks to how ingrained “marriage” is in our culture. If that made any sense.
Interesting legal thought to which I do not know the answer: From a purely legal standpoint (ignore the morality arguments), if in a society a baker is in violation of civil rights by refusing to bake a cake for two homosexuals getting married, is a church in violation if it too refuses to marry two homosexuals of its congregation?
Ok, now, would that same church be in violation of civil rights if it refused to allow black people to join its congregation? -
No, but as a practical matter, in these days of people drifting away from religious institutions, those churches and synagogues that wish to survive should be open and welcoming to all.
Let’s be honest here – religious institutions like churches and synagogues are small businesses too.
Any small business which starts turning people away solely because of their race or LGBT status won’t survive very long.
-
From a purely legal standpoint (ignore the morality arguments), if in a society a baker is in violation of civil rights by refusing to bake a cake for two homosexuals getting married, is a church in violation if it too refuses to marry two homosexuals of its congregation?
Possibly. But not likely.
One possible scenario that the courts could take up is whether a religious institution that has a discriminatory practice (of not performing same-sex marriages) might lose its tax-exempt status.
Bob Jones University barred inter-racial on campus back in the ’80s and lost its exemption over it.
The people who should be concerned over it are religious-based institutions (Universities, Non-profits), where they interface with the general public and/or bounce up against government rules. The actual churches themselves are likely on more firm first amendment footing.
I don’t think that Churches should be tax-exempt period, so fine with me if they lose the status.
-
The ruling as far as I understand it only applies to civil (not religious) marriages so I doubt churches that don’t perform marriages will have an issue.
-
A brave new world for a sick, consumeristic, economics driven society.
If that’s all good to you, SadRad, I’m very sorry to hear that. -
Yes Cigar, but that is Capitalism…you should defend it
-
Quote from dergon
From a purely legal standpoint (ignore the morality arguments), if in a society a baker is in violation of civil rights by refusing to bake a cake for two homosexuals getting married, is a church in violation if it too refuses to marry two homosexuals of its congregation?
Possibly. But not likely.
One possible scenario that the courts could take up is whether a religious institution that has a discriminatory practice (of not performing same-sex marriages) might lose its tax-exempt status.
Bob Jones University barred inter-racial on campus back in the ’80s and lost its exemption over it.
The people who should be concerned over it are religious-based institutions (Universities, Non-profits), where they interface with the general public and/or bounce up against government rules. The actual churches themselves are likely on more firm first amendment footing.
I don’t think that Churches should be tax-exempt period, so fine with me if they lose the status.
I see it as separation of church and state. Sacraments are not civil rights. I’d disagree on the Churches losing tax exempt status. I’d be OK with raising the bar on that but from my experience there’s a real benefit provided to community at large. You don’t need to be catholic to use the food pantry at the local church. I don’t want to force my beliefs on other people. -
Like I said, those religious institutions which are welcoming to all will prosper in the future while those that are closed minded won’t prosper.
If I was a pastor, a minister or a rabbi, I want my church or synagogue membership to swell and my church or synagogue to grow.
If I say that gays are evil and are going to hell, people who are divorced or have ever had an abortion, ever used drugs etc etc etc are not welcome in my house of prayer and start down on such a divisive path, my church or synagogue will eventually go out of business.
This is just common sense. -
Quote from SadRad
Like I said, those religious institutions which are welcoming to all will prosper in the future while those that are closed minded won’t prosper.
If I was a pastor, a minister or a rabbi, I want my church or synagogue membership to swell and my church or synagogue to grow.
If I say that gays are evil and are going to hell, people who are divorced or have ever had an abortion, ever used drugs etc etc etc are not welcome in my house of prayer and start down on such a divisive path, my church or synagogue will eventually go out of business.
This is just common sense.
But it is not common sense. It is religion. I do not necessarily mean that negatively. Overall, a religion, with a few exceptions, is not out to “make that dollar.” Yes, there are the corrupt in power, etc, etc., but that is not what I am talking about.
For most religions, there is some dogma, some set of rules, by which the exist and live. While you look at to from a business stand point of having as many members as possible, that’s not necessarily the goal of a religion. For example, Christians won’t “win life” by having the most members. They will “win” by living as close to the rules set down by their deity. Screw the rest of the folks. If they live a life of sin, so be it. It there are only 10,000 at the end of days that lived “correctly”, and you are one of those 10,000, then you win! Remember, according to the Bible, only 144,000 people will be saved. Small number.
Again, using Christianity as an example, it is not like Jesus said “OK, you all split into different groups and try to recruit. The group that has the most members, regardless of their piety/faith/belief, at the end of four millennia wins the grand prize of eternal life! Ready, set, GO!” It is pointless to have the most members. It is more important to be the most “pure”.
In short, you’re thinking of this all wrong. -
Thanatos, don’t waste your time. They don’t take religion seriously, so they can only look at it in the materialistic way they look at everything else. That’s their worldview.
How else can you explain the left’s maniacal defense of the most anti-freedom murderous religion out there? All the of reasons they have come up (poor, no hope, etc) with have been scientifically (evidentially?) verified as wrong. Yet they still claim they believe in science and think the same way. Weird stuff. -
Gotta love Missouri, or the people of Dent County Missouri who voted to lower their flag to half staff to mourn the gay rights decision.
[link=http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1466145/missouri-county-mourns-gay-marriage]http://national.suntimes….ty-mourns-gay-marriage[/link]
Although apparently this is getting almost immediately reversed. They aren’t even flying half staff for a meaningful reason like loss of a serviceman. -
[url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ken-paxton-contempt-gay-marriage]Texas AG Faces Contempt Hearing Over Failure To Recognize Gay Marriage[/url]
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton and another official to a contempt hearing over the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages following the June Supreme Court ruling, according to Dallas television station WFAA.
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued the order in response to a legal action filed by Texas resident John Stone-Hoskins, who asked the court to hold Paxton in contempt after the state would not amend his spouse’s death certificate to reflect that the two were married, according to the Houston Chronicle.
According to Cole, when he asked the state to amend his spouse’s death certificate, the state cashed his check but refused to complete the paperwork. A Department of State Health Services official wrote, “Until the ruling is fully reviewed, we will not be able to know the impact, if any, on the process to file or amend death certificates. We will keep your documentation in a pending file and will advise you once a determination is made,” according to the Chronicle.
-
Can they be posthumously married?
-
[b]Rivals In Marriage Equality Case Unite Behind Biden[/b][/h1]
Jim Obergefell and Richard Hodges, who sat on opposite sides of history in the Supreme Court case that decided marriage equality, [link=https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/31/opinions/voting-for-joe-biden-obergefell-hodges/index.html]write that theyre united[/link] in support of Joe Biden.
One candidate is a rational, principled, empathetic and competent leader. The other is not. One respects the office of the presidency and has genuine concern for the people whom he serves. The other does not. -
now you are sounding like one of the supporters of the flag who was on cable(MsNBC or CNN) and who was questioning if the GOP threw them under the bus as a wag the tail thing went down(and Noah will be right there with take the flag down now) and the President/GOP get their trade deal
still there is money to be made…there will be a new definition to bridezilla…some of the marriages will be extravaganzasQuote from Cigar
It just keeps getting weird and weirder. Now, the “right” doesn’t matter for other people because there are supposedly fewer of them. As if gays aren’t a crazy minority (at best 2%) of the population. A very well connected, wealthy 2% … which is the point. The whole thing is much ado about nothing but goes part and parcel to the decline of the society — bread and circuses while people are distracted and the TPP passes without being revealed or de-“classified”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Republican Party’s post-Obergefell tactical retreat on same-sex marriage is over.
…
[link=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jackson-hearings-obergefell-roe.html]https://slate.com/news-an…gs-obergefell-roe.html[/link]
[h1]The Ketanji Brown Jackson Hearings Show Marriage Equality Is the Next Target Once [i]Roe[/i] Falls[/h1]
Loathing for [i]Obergefell [/i]emerged early on Tuesday, when Republican Sen. John Cornyn launched a frontal assault on the ruling, then sought Jacksons reaction. He began by criticizing substantive due process, which holds that the liberty protected by the due process clause protects substantive rights, not just procedural ones. The Supreme Court has used this theory to enforce unenumerated rights that it deems fundamental, including the right to marry, raise children, use contraception, and terminate a pregnancy. Along with equal protection, it served as the basis of [i]Obergefell[/i]. According to Cornyn, however, this doctrine is just another form of judicial policymaking that can be used to justify basically any result.
[i]Obergefell[/i], Cornyn told Jackson, was a dramatic departure from previous laws that contradicted 234 years of history. Most states, he pointed out, had not yet repealed their bans on same-sex marriage when the edict came down. Do you share my concern, he asked Jackson, that when the court creates a new right, declaring that anything conflicting with that is unconstitutional, that it creates a circumstance where those who may hold traditional beliefs on something as important as marriage, that they will be vilified as unwilling to assent to this new orthodoxy?
Cornyn then lectured Jackson about the alleged evils of [i]Obergefell[/i]. When the court overrules the decisions made by the people, he told her, as they did in 32 of the 35 states that decided to recognize only traditional marriage between a man and a woman, that is an act of judicial policymaking. The senator went on to claim that [i]Dred Scott[/i], which treated slaves as chattel property, was a product of substantive due process. ([link=https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/02/21/timothy-sandefur/dred-scott-other-fallacies-substantive-due-process/]Thats not actually true[/link], but it marks an obvious effort to sully decisions like [i]Obergefell [/i]with the taint of racist origins.) Cornyn also dismissed [i]Obergefell [/i]as court-made law that were all supposed to salute smartly and follow because nine people who are unelected, who have lifetime tenure, whose salary cannot be reduced while they serve in officefive of them decide that this is the way the world should be.[/QUOTE]
-
Exactly my point about those people & Mayor Petes viability for POTUS. Those people are hate mongers using their God & religion as their excuse.
Unfortunately an old abuse & opposite of what the New Testament teaches.-
Frumi. There are no longer enough of these people
Their votes dont count enough to keep Pete out. Unless he is never given the opportunity because you and the rest of the Dems are afraid to back him up.
-
The whole idea pushed by these tugnuts like Cornyn about tradition is such a load of BS. If you’re going to limit who can get married because the Catholic religion only marries men and women than you’re forcing religion on people. Does that not fly in the face of the constitution and X years of tradition?
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The whole idea pushed by these tugnuts like Cornyn about tradition is such a load of BS. If you’re going to limit who can get married because the Catholic religion only marries men and women than you’re forcing religion on people. Does that not fly in the face of the constitution and X years of tradition?
Of course it does DCD. That’s why nobody should be afraid of the religious right anymore. They’ve been exposed for what they are and like chiro said they are irrelevant. There are plenty of votes to keep them irrelevant. That’s why nobody should be afraid to put up a gay candidate for office. If Mayor Pete has policy goals that mesh with the rest of the Dems then he should be their choice. Don’t blame the minority idiots because you are not ready to stand up for what is right. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The whole idea pushed by these tugnuts like Cornyn about tradition is such a load of BS. If you’re going to limit who can get married because the Catholic religion only marries men and women than you’re forcing religion on people. Does that not fly in the face of the constitution and X years of tradition?
The corect solution is for the .gov to get out of the business of establishing who is married. Remove the tax and property law aspects of it and get the state removed altogether.
-
The problem is not the legal aspects of marriage and property. Thats the reason for these hundreds of years old laws in the 1st place. The problem is religion, regardless of which religion, Christianity, Islam or any other dictating secular laws and what is forbidden depending on the religious laws and most importantly, how they are interpreted and who is interpreting. So you have so-called Christians interpreting new meaning that is not in the New Testament & mixing interpretations with Old Testament mores, none of which seems to appear in either Old or New.
No, we need secular laws to define the rules, its the billion interpretations of what the gods want that is the problem.
As for taxes, thats a whole nother question and discussion.
-
Interesting how the Bible teaches about redemption not oppression yet the bible is quoted as the source as to why same sex marriage and homosexuality is an abomination & then organized religion attempts to oppress it. It boggles the mind that organized religion still has not changed its views on this.
-
Its because much organized religion is just thinly veiled cultural conservatism.
Most new evangelical Christians who have claimed that identity in the Trump era dont even attend Church regularly.
Its more maintaining a white, hetero-normative, American with traditional gender roles while fighting back against what it views as the moral relativism (or even amorality) of multi-cultural secularism.
-
Traditional gender roles are taught because the Bible views those roles lead to procreation. Science has afforded opportunities that have proven gender or who you are married too is not what makes you a great parent. And yet the religions remain stuck in century old practices not relevant to todays world.
-
Millennia old beliefs and practices.
-
Quote from Frumious
Millennia old beliefs and practices.
I find it remarkable how far we have come and where we currently are in this country given the truth of this statement. -
If we accept that marriage can be changed from its original format, why can’t a man or a woman marry two or three people at the same time?
In other words, if a traditional monogamous marriage between a male and female can be changed into a marriage between two men or two women, why it can not be change in other directions? -
Is there some immutable law of the universe forbidding it?
Whats your point? Make your argument of what you mean.
Yes polygamy was hardly forbidden in our ancient religions. -
You mean from a religious viewpoint?
Our ancient religions do not forbid polygamy. -
Quote from Hospital-Rad
If we accept that marriage can be changed from its original format, why can’t a man or a woman marry two or three people at the same time?
In other words, if a traditional monogamous marriage between a male and female can be changed into a marriage between two men or two women, why it can not be change in other directions?In *theory*, there is no reason for the government to be involved in moral disapproval of polygamy. When you look simply on the basis of individual choice and self-determination, there is no reason to block plural marriages.
In *practice*, the practice of polygamy has often been closely tied to abuse of women in socially isolated highly patriarchal religious environments, so I have some skepticism on the true nature of those involved to grant open and full consent to the arrangement.
___________
John Roberts saw plural marriage coming in the Obergefell ruling:
Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective two in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not….. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.
He was issuing a warning, but another reasonable way to read that is that the SSM court decision does indeed pave the way for legalized polygamist relationships. -
Specious and hollow reasoning, linking same-sex marriage to polygamy or polyandry. Only rational for religious rationales.
Perhaps mere sophistry. -
I disagree. Not specious at all.
The ruling in Obergefell had noting to do with religon.
It was a ruling under the equal protection clause. It seems to me very reasonable that the same argument could be made for polygamous marriage.
-
Correct, Roberts did not make his argument based on his religious beliefs. But I still think he “leaps” to his conclusion. Maybe even “jumps the shark.” His whole argument of allowing “the people” through legislation to solely make decisions because the Court should not is totally blind to how “the people” have legislated some people into sub groups with no or less rights than the “right” people. He continually show us his blindness in this respect. He is a blind umpire. (which might be redundant)
This is a very good read regarding the decision.
[link=https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/07/the-initial-appeal-of-chief-justice-john-roberts-dissent-in-obergefell-v-hodges/]https://law.marquette.edu…n-obergefell-v-hodges/[/link]But despite the dissents initial appeal, when one goes deeper into the text there is little that is persuasive. (Judge Posner, [link=http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2014/09/15/7th-circuit-affirms-district-court-ruling-invalidating-wisconsins-marriage-amendment/]once again[/link], minces no words. He [link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2015/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.html]called[/link] the Chief Justices dissent heartless.) Lets start with [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/30/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_is_wrong_about_polygamy.html]polygamy[/link]. While Chief Justice Roberts is correct about that short leap logically, its not likely that well adopt polygamy any time soon. Marriage, as weve come to know it (even in its traditional one-man/one-woman form) is about equality between each spouse in the relationship. Polygamy, especially polygyny (which is one man-multiple wives) is not. When we move from polygamy in its abstract sense to polygamy in its practiced sense, its usually something practiced by a select few men, thereby reducing the number of marriageable women for the rest. And where polygamy is practiced, womens groups have tried to ban or limit it, in large part because it operates on unequal power.
Second, much of Chief Justice Roberts criticism of the Courts due process analysis could easily apply to all of the unenumerated rights the Court has found. Almost always, the Court has found these rights by looking not only at history and tradition, but also at new insightslooking back as well as forward. Many times history has failed us as a people.[b]And that is the concern I have with Roberts leave social change to the people idea. Democracy, for all weve heralded it, has not always been, well, democratic. Democracy has worked often to shun or denigrate many: it has allowed slavery and, later, Jim Crow segregation; it has worked against those who spoke other languages (Germans and European immigrants in the 19th century, Latinos in the 20th); it was prejudiced against certain religions (Catholics and Jews at one time, now Muslims); it has countenanced the subjugation of women, African-Americans, and other people of color, immigrants (whether those from the early 20th century or those in the later 20th century), and, of course, LGBT people. And democracy did so because the majority wanted it that way.[/b]
Historically that majoritythose representatives of the peoplewas nearly exclusively male and nearly exclusively white. Even now, the representatives of the people are still [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/]overwhelmingly white and male[/link]. While this is not to say that all white males share a single vision of this country, it is to say that, at least historically, the majority of such a group has not always been open to ideas and interests outside their own experiences.
At the countrys founding, the right to vote was generally limited to white men who owned land[link=http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html]a mere 10-16% of the population[/link]thereby leaving out many other men. And while the [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv]Fifteenth Amendment[/link] granted the vote to African-Americans in 1870, that right in reality was meaningless because states quickly found ways to limit, directly and indirectly, African-Americans from voting. Women were barred from voting until [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxix]1920[/link]. Though [link=https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2015/01/06/101605/the-changing-face-of-americas-electorate/]the voting public now[/link], in theory, is made up of men and women of all ages, colors, and orientations, voter turnout is often low, especially in non-presidential election years, and it will likely get lower with the implementation of [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/report-voter-id-laws-reduce-turnout-more-among-african-american-and-younger-voters/]voter ID laws[/link] and the recent [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0]gutting of the Voting Rights Act[/link]).
[b]Identifying fundamental rights is the Courts job; it always has been. As Judge Posner said, [i]snt the history of constitutional law the history of Supreme Court justices, often by a narrow vote, inventing new rights and imposing them on the rest of the country? And sometimes it takes that kind of prodding from those unelected lawyers to push society forward. The Court in Obergefell v. Hodges did just that.[/i][/b][i][/i]I for one see a major job of the court to right, as in correct the laws passed by “the people” that is not democratic, that keeps certain people in a “less than” state because that is what some people, the ones behind the legislation want.
My opinion is exactly a big reason why I am a liberal. I lived in Jim Crow country for awhile in my younger years and never understood it as it seemed obvious it was wrong. This was legislation that had local majority support – “democracy” in the minds of some narrow-minded people in action that required Federal action and the Court to correct.
Are those days over?
-
Quote from Frumious
Correct, Roberts did not make his argument based on his religious beliefs. But I still think he “leaps” to his conclusion. Maybe even “jumps the shark.” His whole argument of allowing “the people” through legislation to solely make decisions because the Court should not is totally blind to how “the people” have legislated some people into sub groups with no or less rights than the “right” people. He continually show us his blindness in this respect. He is a blind umpire. (which might be redundant)
This is a very good read regarding the decision.
[link=https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/07/the-initial-appeal-of-chief-justice-john-roberts-dissent-in-obergefell-v-hodges/]https://law.marquette.edu…n-obergefell-v-hodges/[/link]
But despite the dissents initial appeal, when one goes deeper into the text there is little that is persuasive. (Judge Posner, [link=http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2014/09/15/7th-circuit-affirms-district-court-ruling-invalidating-wisconsins-marriage-amendment/]once again[/link], minces no words. He [link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2015/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.html]called[/link] the Chief Justices dissent heartless.) Lets start with [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/30/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_is_wrong_about_polygamy.html]polygamy[/link]. While Chief Justice Roberts is correct about that short leap logically, its not likely that well adopt polygamy any time soon. Marriage, as weve come to know it (even in its traditional one-man/one-woman form) is about equality between each spouse in the relationship. Polygamy, especially polygyny (which is one man-multiple wives) is not. When we move from polygamy in its abstract sense to polygamy in its practiced sense, its usually something practiced by a select few men, thereby reducing the number of marriageable women for the rest. And where polygamy is practiced, womens groups have tried to ban or limit it, in large part because it operates on unequal power.
Second, much of Chief Justice Roberts criticism of the Courts due process analysis could easily apply to all of the unenumerated rights the Court has found. Almost always, the Court has found these rights by looking not only at history and tradition, but also at new insightslooking back as well as forward. Many times history has failed us as a people.
[b]And that is the concern I have with Roberts leave social change to the people idea. Democracy, for all weve heralded it, has not always been, well, democratic. Democracy has worked often to shun or denigrate many: it has allowed slavery and, later, Jim Crow segregation; it has worked against those who spoke other languages (Germans and European immigrants in the 19th century, Latinos in the 20th); it was prejudiced against certain religions (Catholics and Jews at one time, now Muslims); it has countenanced the subjugation of women, African-Americans, and other people of color, immigrants (whether those from the early 20th century or those in the later 20th century), and, of course, LGBT people. And democracy did so because the majority wanted it that way.[/b]
Historically that majoritythose representatives of the peoplewas nearly exclusively male and nearly exclusively white. Even now, the representatives of the people are still [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/]overwhelmingly white and male[/link]. While this is not to say that all white males share a single vision of this country, it is to say that, at least historically, the majority of such a group has not always been open to ideas and interests outside their own experiences.
At the countrys founding, the right to vote was generally limited to white men who owned land[link=http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html]a mere 10-16% of the population[/link]thereby leaving out many other men. And while the [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv]Fifteenth Amendment[/link] granted the vote to African-Americans in 1870, that right in reality was meaningless because states quickly found ways to limit, directly and indirectly, African-Americans from voting. Women were barred from voting until [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxix]1920[/link]. Though [link=https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2015/01/06/101605/the-changing-face-of-americas-electorate/]the voting public now[/link], in theory, is made up of men and women of all ages, colors, and orientations, voter turnout is often low, especially in non-presidential election years, and it will likely get lower with the implementation of [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/report-voter-id-laws-reduce-turnout-more-among-african-american-and-younger-voters/]voter ID laws[/link] and the recent [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0]gutting of the Voting Rights Act[/link]).
[b]Identifying fundamental rights is the Courts job; it always has been. As Judge Posner said, [i]snt the history of constitutional law the history of Supreme Court justices, often by a narrow vote, inventing new rights and imposing them on the rest of the country? And sometimes it takes that kind of prodding from those unelected lawyers to push society forward. The Court in Obergefell v. Hodges did just that.[/i][/b][i]
[/i]I for one see a major job of the court to right, as in correct the laws passed by “the people” that is not democratic, that keeps certain people in a “less than” state because that is what some people, the ones behind the legislation want.
[b]My opinion is exactly a big reason why I am a liberal[/b]. I lived in Jim Crow country for awhile in my younger years and never understood it as it seemed obvious it was wrong. This was legislation that had local majority support – “democracy” in the minds of some narrow-minded people in action that required Federal action and the Court to correct.
Are those days over?
This is your most reasoned post yet. It is a “liberal” stance to suggest the court should right wrongs and not just uphold constitutional law. I am not saying I disagree from an emotional point of view. However, it is pretty funny to watch you argue with a SCOTUS on the subject. -
Quote from dergon
Quote from Hospital-Rad
If we accept that marriage can be changed from its original format, why can’t a man or a woman marry two or three people at the same time?
In other words, if a traditional monogamous marriage between a male and female can be changed into a marriage between two men or two women, why it can not be change in other directions?In *theory*, there is no reason for the government to be involved in moral disapproval of polygamy. When you look simply on the basis of individual choice and self-determination, there is no reason to block plural marriages.
In *practice*, the practice of polygamy has often been closely tied to abuse of women in socially isolated highly patriarchal religious environments, so I have some skepticism on the true nature of those involved to grant open and full consent to the arrangement.
___________
John Roberts saw plural marriage coming in the Obergefell ruling:
Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective two in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not….. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.
He was issuing a warning, but another reasonable way to read that is that the SSM court decision does indeed pave the way for legalized polygamist relationships.
makes sense. I wouldn’t see this as any different than someone having two girlfriends/boyfriends, or otherwise being in some sort of open relationship. Why not let people put it on legal paper. Yeah there’s weirdo polygamists that probably need to be kept in check from abusing women, children.
I always remember in HS when Mr Anderson was talking about the Mormons. He said something like “How many guys in here would like to have more than one wife?” I forget how many people raised there hands. Than he proceeded to laugh at them and said “Do you really think you could afford to have more than one woman in your life?” -
Having 2 girlfriends or 2 boyfriends usually does not mean everyone living together sharing equally. Not that I’ve seen anywhere ever anyway. I’d bet that living under equality does not happen in polygamous Mormon households either. 1st question for Mormons, is polyandry allowed? And if not, why not? I’ll bet the answer refers to their interpretation of their religion & nothing secular.
-
Quote from Frumious
Having 2 girlfriends or 2 boyfriends usually does not mean everyone living together sharing equally. Not that I’ve seen anywhere ever anyway. I’d bet that living under equality does not happen in polygamous Mormon households either. 1st question for Mormons, is polyandry allowed? And if not, why not? I’ll bet the answer refers to their interpretation of their religion & nothing secular.
why not? If I thought of it’s probably happening somewhere. There’s a guy shacked up two girls or vice versa.
-
I have not seen that as a usual arrangement especially commingling finances the way married couples might do.
As for why not? Exactly, why not. But it is still “shacking up.” Unless there are additional written agreements, there are no legal rights between them. Married people have legal rights between them. -
Quote from dergon
In *theory*, there is no reason for the government to be involved in moral disapproval of polygamy. When you look simply on the basis of individual choice and self-determination, there is no reason to block plural marriages.
In *practice*, the practice of polygamy has often been closely tied to abuse of women in socially isolated highly patriarchal religious environments, so I have some skepticism on the true nature of those involved[b] to grant open and full consent to the arrangement[/b].
So in our society, even if an adult woman (or man) grant full consent, the government should not let them have such a marriage?
Are you saying that government is in the position to tell people what to do and what not to do?With the same logic a marriage between a 55 year old man and a 25 year old woman (or 40 year old man and 22 year old woman) should be ILLEGAL since it has often been closely tied to abuse of the woman.
-
Quote from Hospital-Rad
So in our society, even if an adult woman (or man) grant full consent, the government should not let them have such a marriage?
That is the secular law.Quote from Hospital-Rad
Are you saying that government is in the position to tell people what to do and what not to do?
Are you a “sovereign citizen?” A “citizen” of what exactly?
The answer is yes. Are you opposed to government? And if a republic government cannot pass and enforce laws, what do you have?Quote from Hospital-Rad
With the same logic a marriage between a 55 year old man and a 25 year old woman (or 40 year old man and 22 year old woman) should be ILLEGAL since it has often been closely tied to abuse of the woman.
Is there a demonstrated history of age difference marriages being abusive to women?
Post some links please. I have not seen arguments as such about differences in ages between spouses as an automatic proof of abuse to the younger partner.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aunt Minnie Same Sex Marriage Poll:
[b]Which state will be the first to pass a gay marriage ban in order to try to get a fresh Supreme Court review?[/b]
-
[b]The Senate Will Vote to Codify Same-Sex Marriage Rights[/b][/h1]
Democrats will put the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act up for a vote this week just days after the midterms, [link=https://www.semafor.com/article/11/14/2022/the-senate-will-vote-to-codify-same-sex-marriage-rights-this-week]Semafor[/link] reports.
Earlier this month, [i]Semafor[/i] reported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer intended to pass the Respect for Marriage Act by years end and that it was expected to have enough votes. This legislation, which has already passed the House of Representatives with 47 Republicans joining Democrats, would federalize same sex marriage recognition and protection if the Supreme Court reverses itself on same sex marriage rights.
-
-
[h1][b][link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sltrib.com%2Freligion%2F2022%2F11%2F15%2Flds-church-comes-out-federal%2F]LDS Church comes out for federal bill that recognizes same-sex marriage[/link][/b][/h1]
In an unexpected move Tuesday, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave its support to a [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.congress.gov%2Fbill%2F117th-congress%2Fhouse-bill%2F8404%2Ftext%3Fformat%3Dtxt]proposed federal law [/link]that would not only recognize all legal marriages but also codify ones between same-sex couples.
The Utah-based faiths doctrine related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged, according to a [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Farticle%2Frespect-for-marriage-act-statement]statement posted to the churchs website[/link]. We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.
It seems a somewhat of a reversal for the church, which famously put its members and a lot of money [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.sltrib.com%2Fstory.php%3Fref%3D%2Fnews%2Fci_11044660]behind Californias Proposition 8[/link] in 2008 to oppose same-sex marriage before it was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some perspectives apparently have changed.
We believe this approach is the way forward, the current statement said. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.
-
[link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2022%2F11%2F16%2Fsenate-marriage-equality-bill%2F]Senate advances marriage bill on 62-37 vote[/link]
12 Republicans joined all 50 Democrats in voting for cloture. This should mean full passage is imminent.
37 GOP senators oppose-
About time.
-
-
[link=https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/politics/same-sex-marriage-vote-senate/index.html] Senate passes bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage in landmark vote
[/link]
The Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, called the Respect for Marriage Act, in a landmark bipartisan vote.
The final vote was 61-36. The bill was supported by all members of the Democratic caucus and 12 Republicans, the same dozen GOP members who backed the bill for a [link=https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/senate-republicans-vote-same-sex-marriage]procedural vote earlier this month[/link].
The House will now need to approve the legislation before sending it to President Joe Bidens desk to be signed into law. The House is expected to pass the bill before the end of the year possibly as soon as next week.
While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another states legal marriage.
So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn [link=https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html]its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges[/link] decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
