Gay Marriage everywhere, mass hysteria ensues

[Azalin]

 

Isn't that basically what this is mainly about, equal rights, equal benefits?

 

That's the way I see it. I do believe it should have been left up to the individual states, but yes, I believe you're right.

 

Ok - I just started a church that recognizes and marries same sex people - does it now hold merit?

 

Yes, but good luck getting altar boys.

[DC Tom]

 

 

It appears to me that the argument is a matter of semantics. Marriage, legal civil unions or what have you, call it what you want, the point of contention for me are that these couples enjoy all the same benefits provided to heterosexual couples.

 

Maybe I should read up more on this ruling. Isn't that basically what this is mainly about, equal rights, equal benefits?

 

It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of constitutional law and separation of powers. To receive the benefits of marriage, you need to provide a valid marriage certificate issued by a state. State regulations as to what does and does not constitute an approved marriage already vary state-to-state. The federal government has never had an issue with that before - if you have a valid marriage license from the state, you are married.

 

This decision is a precedent. It's telling the states "This is how you must legally define your requirements for 'marriage.'" So what's next? Forcing North Carolina to recognize common-law marriages from other states?

Since marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution shouldn't the 10th amendment apply?

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

And so does the full faith and credit clause. Had the court ruled in a hypothetical case that a state law refusing to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state was invalid, I'd be totally behind that decision.

 

The thing is, these are not legal issues that have never been considered before. The Supremes just discarded a hell of a lot of law and precedent.

[IDBillzFan]

Virtually no one will care about this decision until the feds start suggesting churches lose their tax exempt status because they will not conduct gay marriages.

 

It's funny, because there are more than enough churches that WILL marry gay couples, but that won't matter to the left. They'll just keep sending gay couples to Christian churches until they get shut down with all the regularity of a Christian bakery.

[unbillievable]

Anyone who uses a historical argument with religious objections need to stop. You are misinformed.

 

Marriage was entirely a civil (non-religious) concept before it was co-opted by religion and sanctified. The entire idea is originally about property law. (and trading daughters between families.) Binding two people for life isn't exactly a natural concept. It was forced on the population by a governing body.

 

You can't say that the government has no business regulating (or performing) marriages, because it was their idea to begin with... Imagine if the church started printing it's own money, then asked the government to butt out of it's business.

 

 

edit: for the record, I support the government getting out of the marriage business, I just haven't figured out a better argument against the current ruling that doesn't include "religious" objections.

Edited June 26, 2015 by unbillievable

[LeviF]

Anyone who uses a historical argument with religious objections need to stop. You are misinformed.

 

Marriage was entirely a civil (non-religious) concept before it was co-opted by religion and sanctified. The entire idea is originally about property law. (and trading daughters between families.) Binding two people for life isn't exactly a natural concept. It was forced on the population by a governing body.

 

You can't say that the government has no business regulating (or performing) marriages, because it was their idea to begin with... Imagine if the church started printing it's own money, then asked the government to butt out of it's business.

 

 

edit: for the record, I support the government getting out of the marriage business, I just haven't figured out a better argument against the current ruling that doesn't include "religious" objections.

 

What does any of this have to do with marriage law in the USA (est. 1776)?

 

My objections to the ruling in this particular case have nothing to do with religion, but I'm interested in hearing the answer anyway.

Edited June 26, 2015 by LeviF91

[unbillievable]

 

What does any of this have to do with marriage law in the USA (est. 1776)?

 

My objections to the ruling in this particular case have nothing to do with religion, but I'm interested in hearing the answer anyway.

 

It has to do with the arguments (as stated by TakeYouToTasker) that the government needs to leave marriage to the church. It's the primary rebuttal being thrown out there. You can't say that the government should stay out of church business when marriage itself is a civil concept; the more logical argument being that the church should stay out of government business.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

It has to do with the arguments (as stated by TakeYouToTasker) that the government needs to leave marriage to the church. It's the primary rebuttal being thrown out there. You can't say that the government should stay out of church business when marriage itself is a civil concept; the more logical argument being that the church should stay out of government business.

 

In the United States it has always been a religious institution. We're still talking about the United States, correct?

[LeviF]

 

It has to do with the arguments (as stated by TakeYouToTasker) that the government needs to leave marriage to the church. It's the primary rebuttal being thrown out there. You can't say that the government should stay out of church business when marriage itself is a civil concept; the more logical argument being that the church should stay out of government business.

 

My point was that marriage, in the United States (the only relevant time, then, being 1776-present. Maybe the early 1700s if you want to stretch it), has always been a religious concept. That it was co-opted by religion however many thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the conversation.

[GG]

Anyone who uses a historical argument with religious objections need to stop. You are misinformed.

 

Marriage was entirely a civil (non-religious) concept before it was co-opted by religion and sanctified. The entire idea is originally about property law. (and trading daughters between families.) Binding two people for life isn't exactly a natural concept. It was forced on the population by a governing body.

 

You can't say that the government has no business regulating (or performing) marriages, because it was their idea to begin with... Imagine if the church started printing it's own money, then asked the government to butt out of it's business.

 

 

edit: for the record, I support the government getting out of the marriage business, I just haven't figured out a better argument against the current ruling that doesn't include "religious" objections.

 

I think you have that backwards. Marriage was a religious institution in nearly every culture and society, and that's why you have the concept of a common law marriage for unions consummated outside the temple.

[unbillievable]

 

I think you have that backwards. Marriage was a religious institution in nearly every culture and society, and that's why you have the concept of a common law marriage for unions consummated outside the temple.

No I don't have it backwards.

 

I was surprised too, but when I did the research-thinking that religion came first, did I discover that marriage is not a religious concept.

The earliest unions were performed by the elders (not the spiritual leader). It was the families (sanctioned by city/state leaders) that joined couples together. Only later (with the rise of organized religions) did it become sanctified.

[unbillievable]

 

My point was that marriage, in the United States (the only relevant time, then, being 1776-present. Maybe the early 1700s if you want to stretch it), has always been a religious concept. That it was co-opted by religion however many thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the conversation.

I understand your point, only that it won't stand up to criticism since you choose to include flawed constraints.

 

I also found it amusing that my nephew thought Transformers was an original idea of Michael Bay. He was surprised to learn they were toys in the 80s.

[LeviF]

I understand your point, only that it won't stand up to criticism since you choose to include flawed constraints.

 

I also found it amusing that my nephew thought Transformers was an original idea of Michael Bay. He was surprised to learn they were toys in the 80s.

 

What makes the constraints flawed? United States law has only existed for that long, and the SCOTUS only holds jurisdiction in the United States and only rules on United States law. I understand where you're coming from but believe that your constraints (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on a USSC decision.

[DC Tom]

edit: for the record, I support the government getting out of the marriage business, I just haven't figured out a better argument against the current ruling that doesn't include "religious" objections.

 

Then you're not paying attention. I gave one.

[Deranged Rhino]

[unbillievable]

 

What makes the constraints flawed? United States law has only existed for that long, and the SCOTUS only holds jurisdiction in the United States and only rules on United States law. I understand where you're coming from but believe that your constraints (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on a USSC decision.

Because religion isn't limited to the United States. (and did not begin it's ban on gay marriage in 1776)

Many protestant churches already allow gay marriages.

 

If your going to go with religious objections as your rebuttal, then you cannot use the catholic church based in Rome as your vehicle. (Since they are the ones primarily driving the ban). If you're going to limit your arguments to US based law and US culture starting in 1776-present, then the debate is already over; US born religions have no (or very little) objection to same-sex marriages.

 

You're basically saying that you're allowed to use a foreign-born idea, dating before the USA, but your opponents are restricted to a certain time frame.

Edited June 26, 2015 by unbillievable

[Dorkington]

It's fun watching the mental gymnastics folks here are going through in regards to marriage equality and racism.

[IDBillzFan]

Politico wastes no time: It's Time To Legalize Polygamy

 

Thanks, progs. You're nothing if not predictable.

[DC Tom]

Politico wastes no time: It's Time To Legalize Polygamy

 

Thanks, progs. You're nothing if not predictable.

 

In case you're wondering, he's an "academic" (self-described) who just received a Ph.D. in "Writing Pedagogy," is unemployed for the foreseeable future (again, by his own admission) and started his own GoFundMe drive to rent a UHaul to move to "parts unknown" (his own phrasing).

 

And his article isn't satire. He's serious.

Edited June 27, 2015 by DC Tom

[IDBillzFan]

 

In case you're wondering, he's an "academic" (self-described) who just received a Ph.D. in "Writing Pedagogy," is unemployed for the foreseeable future (again, by his own admission) and started his own GoFundMe drive to rent a UHaul to move to "parts unknown" (his own phrasing).

 

You just described virtually every liberal I've ever met.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Far left liberals and far right Mormons are sure going to make for strange bedfellows.