Justices rule on SSM (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain Our borders must be controlled. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.....we must have control over people who try to infiltrate our society and cause us harm. That being said, remove most of the controls against people who want to come here for a better life for themselves or their family. Make it easy to come here, easy to become a citizen, and easy to pay the taxes needed to run our country. Our system is ridiculously complicated and scary for people coming to our country to enjoy our way of life. And yes, any two people should be allowed to marry if they wish. I see no reason for hetero couples to have all the "fun". And legalize drugs. Release all non-violent drug offenders from our prisons and replace them with anyone who commits and is found guilty of a SINGLE violent crime against another person. What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi I read this over and over again trying to find the part I disagree with and I couldn't do it. I'm even down with moon pies and grape Nehi. Go figure. Bring back Peach Nehi too! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Our borders must be controlled. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.....we must have control over people who try to infiltrate our society and cause us harm. That being said, remove most of the controls against people who want to come here for a better life for themselves or their family. Make it easy to come here, easy to become a citizen, and easy to pay the taxes needed to run our country. Our system is ridiculously complicated and scary for people coming to our country to enjoy our way of life. And yes, any two people should be allowed to marry if they wish. I see no reason for hetero couples to have all the "fun". And legalize drugs. Release all non-violent drug offenders from our prisons and replace them with anyone who commits and is found guilty of a SINGLE violent crime against another person. What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi Like! Except I have no idea what either of those are |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jobaxas Originally posted by Left Brain Our borders must be controlled. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.....we must have control over people who try to infiltrate our society and cause us harm. That being said, remove most of the controls against people who want to come here for a better life for themselves or their family. Make it easy to come here, easy to become a citizen, and easy to pay the taxes needed to run our country. Our system is ridiculously complicated and scary for people coming to our country to enjoy our way of life. And yes, any two people should be allowed to marry if they wish. I see no reason for hetero couples to have all the "fun". And legalize drugs. Release all non-violent drug offenders from our prisons and replace them with anyone who commits and is found guilty of a SINGLE violent crime against another person. What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi Like! Except I have no idea what either of those are Jo...they are the secret to a happy marriage......ask any Tibetan Monk...which is why I brought it up in this thread. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Our borders must be controlled. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.....we must have control over people who try to infiltrate our society and cause us harm. That being said, remove most of the controls against people who want to come here for a better life for themselves or their family. Make it easy to come here, easy to become a citizen, and easy to pay the taxes needed to run our country. Our system is ridiculously complicated and scary for people coming to our country to enjoy our way of life. And yes, any two people should be allowed to marry if they wish. I see no reason for hetero couples to have all the "fun". And legalize drugs. Release all non-violent drug offenders from our prisons and replace them with anyone who commits and is found guilty of a SINGLE violent crime against another person. What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi Wow, that seems almost...liberal ![]() Seriously though, I could not agree more with your comments. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by Left Brain Our borders must be controlled. We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.....we must have control over people who try to infiltrate our society and cause us harm. That being said, remove most of the controls against people who want to come here for a better life for themselves or their family. Make it easy to come here, easy to become a citizen, and easy to pay the taxes needed to run our country. Our system is ridiculously complicated and scary for people coming to our country to enjoy our way of life. And yes, any two people should be allowed to marry if they wish. I see no reason for hetero couples to have all the "fun". And legalize drugs. Release all non-violent drug offenders from our prisons and replace them with anyone who commits and is found guilty of a SINGLE violent crime against another person. What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi Wow, that seems almost...liberal ![]() Seriously though, I could not agree more with your comments. Old school liberal, perhaps. Current libertarian. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Very happy that part of DOMA was tossed and all couples will (likely) be allowed to marry in California. It is truly amazing to me how far and fast we have moved on this issue in just the last couple of years. And funny thing, my marriage doesn't feel any less protected today, and didn't notice the sky falling yet. I think my wife loves moon pies, me not so much. But, after all these years of being married, I do realize that she is right. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Woo-hoo! Still pumped about this today. This means a lot to me, but it means so much to so many of my friends, and it's been great to talk with them today and see how happy they are. There are lots of gay couples in our community, and the vibe in town today is just awesome! Buzzy, giddy, happy :) |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Woo-hoo! Still pumped about this today. This means a lot to me, but it means so much to so many of my friends, and it's been great to talk with them today and see how happy they are. There are lots of gay couples in our community, and the vibe in town today is just awesome! Buzzy, giddy, happy I know!!! Having come from a country where equal marriages were legalized in 2005, it seemed odd to move a place that didn't have the same standards of equality. So happy to be here to see the changes being made. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Sooooooooo, here's the problem. The court didn't say 8 was unconstitutional, only that the proponents did not have standing. SCOTUS vacated the ninth circuit ruling holding that the proponents have standing, and affirming the district court's ruling that the initiative was unconstitional (despite the fact that the ninth circuit certified a question to the Cal. Supreme Court - do the proponents have standing to challenge? to which the answer was yes - raising the question why a state cannot determine who gets to challenge its initiatives, but I digress). So we have a district court judge ruling 8 was unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. But, it is still in the California Constitution. Big legal issue - can a district court invalidate for all time a popularly passed initiative (as distasteful as the initiative might be), without any judicial review? I am not sure, although I have heard that it takes a court of appeal opinion with precedential value. We have 4 federal districts in california. 8 was held unconstitutional in the northern district. A district court ruling has no precedential value in another district. Another problem. And now (finally) to my point. SCOTUS' ruling (the outcome of which I agree with, btw), throws our initiative system into disarray. For example: People pass a medical marijuana initiative. Use of marijuana illegal under federal law. Suit is filed by disrguntled anti marijuana activist, finding some federal basis for relief, in federal court, wins in district court conservative governor/AG decides not to defend the initiative. Sounds like the governor now has sole power to thwart the will of the people, to me.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Woo-hoo! Still pumped about this today. This means a lot to me, but it means so much to so many of my friends, and it's been great to talk with them today and see how happy they are. There are lots of gay couples in our community, and the vibe in town today is just awesome! Buzzy, giddy, happy It's actually Pride Week here in Seattle, which is always a great time but it is going to be even more incredible, like an 11 on the glitter scale, this time around! I'll have to share some pictures |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Hook'em SCOTUS issued rulings on two cases dealing with same sex marriage, but managed to avoid the issue of whether same sex marriages are protected by the Constitution. The DOMA ruling leaves many questions yet unanswered, which will decided in the coming years. I am not sure where it says that different sex marriage is protected by the Constitution. Edited by Jackemy1 2013-06-28 8:50 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. I remember going to a coworker's BBQ. They were a female gay couple who had just had a baby. We went over to one of them holding the baby to say hi, and I remember my son, who was about 4 at the time, asking where was the daddy. My wife and I just looked at each other like 'oh sh*t, now what do we say?' and my friend just replied that their baby has two mommies. My son was like 'ok' and that was it. Adults over complicate everything. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm happy that they ruled this way, but I'd still like to see the government get out of the business of marriage. I think there should be a civil union type of contract that any two people can sign and then if people want a "marriage" they can find someone to marry them, but it will hold no legal standing. When I got married, my wife and I used a Justice to marry us. I'm not religious and the definition of "marriage" means nothing to me. We were merely formalizing to the government that we were together. If things like a will, hospital visits, etc. weren't all tied to marriage we probably wouldn't have obtained the certificate even. I think this would be the fair and equitable way to solve this issue though. My dad's sister and her partner have been together now for 25 years. They of course can't be married in their state and it's really a shame. My aunt is dealing with some potentially deadly cancer issues and I can't even begin to think about all of the legal hassle her partner might have to go through if the cancer turned deadly. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by JoshRI'm happy that they ruled this way, but I'd still like to see the government get out of the business of marriage. I think there should be a civil union type of contract that any two people can sign and then if people want a "marriage" they can find someone to marry them, but it will hold no legal standing. When I got married, my wife and I used a Justice to marry us. I'm not religious and the definition of "marriage" means nothing to me. We were merely formalizing to the government that we were together. If things like a will, hospital visits, etc. weren't all tied to marriage we probably wouldn't have obtained the certificate even. I think this would be the fair and equitable way to solve this issue though. My dad's sister and her partner have been together now for 25 years. They of course can't be married in their state and it's really a shame. My aunt is dealing with some potentially deadly cancer issues and I can't even begin to think about all of the legal hassle her partner might have to go through if the cancer turned deadly. Agree completely. I hope your aunt and her partner have enough time to get what they can in order. This is one of the complications that makes my blood boil. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Originally posted by JoshRI'm happy that they ruled this way, but I'd still like to see the government get out of the business of marriage. I think there should be a civil union type of contract that any two people can sign and then if people want a "marriage" they can find someone to marry them, but it will hold no legal standing. When I got married, my wife and I used a Justice to marry us. I'm not religious and the definition of "marriage" means nothing to me. We were merely formalizing to the government that we were together. If things like a will, hospital visits, etc. weren't all tied to marriage we probably wouldn't have obtained the certificate even. I think this would be the fair and equitable way to solve this issue though. My dad's sister and her partner have been together now for 25 years. They of course can't be married in their state and it's really a shame. My aunt is dealing with some potentially deadly cancer issues and I can't even begin to think about all of the legal hassle her partner might have to go through if the cancer turned deadly. Agree completely. I hope your aunt and her partner have enough time to get what they can in order. This is one of the complications that makes my blood boil. I'm sure they have all of their ducks in a row. She's been dealing with some minor colon cancer now for almost a year, but it has the potential to become very serious, quickly. I just think it's ridiculous that on top of dealing with cancer, they need to stress out about what happens to her partner if it does become deadly. Edited by JoshR 2013-06-28 9:33 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process. But I think the previous generation's taboos become the next one's reckoning. Our younger generation gets to decide what is and isn't taboo, adopt that and challenge the status quo to either accept or fight that change. Slavery, polygamy, racism and now SSM has been the last 4 societal norms which have been cast out as accepted discrimination and moved to the "it doesn't affect my life one bit what you do" column. I do support SSM and am very happy for friends of mine who now can be "legitimized" in their love for each other. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by pitt83 Hold the phone...is polygamy in that list? Originally posted by switch Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process.But I think the previous generation's taboos become the next one's reckoning. Our younger generation gets to decide what is and isn't taboo, adopt that and challenge the status quo to either accept or fight that change. Slavery, polygamy, racism and now SSM has been the last 4 societal norms which have been cast out as accepted discrimination and moved to the "it doesn't affect my life one bit what you do" column.I do support SSM and am very happy for friends of mine who now can be "legitimized" in their love for each other. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process. I always say that each one of these votes brings our country one step closer to the day that we all look back at the time before marriage equality and wonder what we were thinking. There's a boy in my son's third grade class who likes to wear dresses. I asked my son what he thought about it, and he literally didn't understand what I was asking him. To him it was the same as if I had said, "What do you think about the kid who only likes to wear blue?" He certainly recognized that it was different than what most boys do, but he didn't attach any kind of stigma or judgement to the kid's choice. I thought that was cool. There is a great quote from MLK that I've seen on about 100 people's FB pages over the last few days: "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it always bends towards justice." |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Originally posted by pitt83 Hold the phone...is polygamy in that list? Originally posted by switch Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process.But I think the previous generation's taboos become the next one's reckoning. Our younger generation gets to decide what is and isn't taboo, adopt that and challenge the status quo to either accept or fight that change. Slavery, polygamy, racism and now SSM has been the last 4 societal norms which have been cast out as accepted discrimination and moved to the "it doesn't affect my life one bit what you do" column.I do support SSM and am very happy for friends of mine who now can be "legitimized" in their love for each other. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. lol, ok that made me laugh. I don't think it's on the list today, but as the SSM marriage becomes more and more accepted across the country I can assure you it will be at some point in the future. I can also assure you anyone who disagrees with allowing it will be labeled a hater who is against "equal rights". My personal opinion is similar to Josh in that I feel the government should get out of the marriage business period. From a government standpoint marriage isn't a right, it's a civil matter that enables two people to be entitled to legal benefits. Why not make it just that and call it a civil union. However, as I just mentioned even if it's a civil union (or marriage) between two people (regardless of gender) then the next question will be why is it only two people. You should be able to form a union with whoever you want right. So, there will still be fights to change it but society will determine that it's not acceptable "today" to allow three people to marry or for married people to marry other married people etc. However, in 20, 30, 50 years as moral and religious beliefs continue to evolve these things will likely change as well. So, I still say it's a complex issue and it's not just as simple as letting people marry whoever they want, because nobody wants to allow that. We all have limits as to who we feel people should be able to marry. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood I actually don't care who people marry or form a union with, as long as it is completely consensual and not coerced, which is my perception/understanding of many polygamist marriages.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by pitt83 Hold the phone...is polygamy in that list? Originally posted by switch Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process.But I think the previous generation's taboos become the next one's reckoning. Our younger generation gets to decide what is and isn't taboo, adopt that and challenge the status quo to either accept or fight that change. Slavery, polygamy, racism and now SSM has been the last 4 societal norms which have been cast out as accepted discrimination and moved to the "it doesn't affect my life one bit what you do" column.I do support SSM and am very happy for friends of mine who now can be "legitimized" in their love for each other. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. lol, ok that made me laugh. I don't think it's on the list today, but as the SSM marriage becomes more and more accepted across the country I can assure you it will be at some point in the future. I can also assure you anyone who disagrees with allowing it will be labeled a hater who is against "equal rights". My personal opinion is similar to Josh in that I feel the government should get out of the marriage business period. From a government standpoint marriage isn't a right, it's a civil matter that enables two people to be entitled to legal benefits. Why not make it just that and call it a civil union. However, as I just mentioned even if it's a civil union (or marriage) between two people (regardless of gender) then the next question will be why is it only two people. You should be able to form a union with whoever you want right. So, there will still be fights to change it but society will determine that it's not acceptable "today" to allow three people to marry or for married people to marry other married people etc. However, in 20, 30, 50 years as moral and religious beliefs continue to evolve these things will likely change as well. So, I still say it's a complex issue and it's not just as simple as letting people marry whoever they want, because nobody wants to allow that. We all have limits as to who we feel people should be able to marry. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood I actually don't care who people marry or form a union with, as long as it is completely consensual and not coerced, which is my perception/understanding of many polygamist marriages.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by pitt83 Hold the phone...is polygamy in that list? Originally posted by switch Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process.But I think the previous generation's taboos become the next one's reckoning. Our younger generation gets to decide what is and isn't taboo, adopt that and challenge the status quo to either accept or fight that change. Slavery, polygamy, racism and now SSM has been the last 4 societal norms which have been cast out as accepted discrimination and moved to the "it doesn't affect my life one bit what you do" column.I do support SSM and am very happy for friends of mine who now can be "legitimized" in their love for each other. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. lol, ok that made me laugh. I don't think it's on the list today, but as the SSM marriage becomes more and more accepted across the country I can assure you it will be at some point in the future. I can also assure you anyone who disagrees with allowing it will be labeled a hater who is against "equal rights". My personal opinion is similar to Josh in that I feel the government should get out of the marriage business period. From a government standpoint marriage isn't a right, it's a civil matter that enables two people to be entitled to legal benefits. Why not make it just that and call it a civil union. However, as I just mentioned even if it's a civil union (or marriage) between two people (regardless of gender) then the next question will be why is it only two people. You should be able to form a union with whoever you want right. So, there will still be fights to change it but society will determine that it's not acceptable "today" to allow three people to marry or for married people to marry other married people etc. However, in 20, 30, 50 years as moral and religious beliefs continue to evolve these things will likely change as well. So, I still say it's a complex issue and it's not just as simple as letting people marry whoever they want, because nobody wants to allow that. We all have limits as to who we feel people should be able to marry. I don't know a lot about polygamy but I do agree there are some and maybe even many that are coerced. I would also say there are many that are completely consensual. So, in order to allow the consensual ones you have to allow the rest. I'm just playing devils advocate here, but what about two 13 year old's getting married (to each other)? What about a brother and sister? Father/Daughter (both adults)? I am not comparing any of these to SSM so please don't interpret it as that. I'm just saying that at some level society through the government is going to have limits on who can get married or be joined in a civil union. Like I said, it's complex. :-/ |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by switch Originally posted by tuwood I actually don't care who people marry or form a union with, as long as it is completely consensual and not coerced, which is my perception/understanding of many polygamist marriages.Originally posted by switch Originally posted by pitt83 Hold the phone...is polygamy in that list? Originally posted by switch Thought provoking reply Switch: My father's generation was shocked and bigoted against mixed racial marriage. To me, I can NOT grasp this. I simply don't understand how that's an idea which could exist in a sane person's thought process.But I think the previous generation's taboos become the next one's reckoning. Our younger generation gets to decide what is and isn't taboo, adopt that and challenge the status quo to either accept or fight that change. Slavery, polygamy, racism and now SSM has been the last 4 societal norms which have been cast out as accepted discrimination and moved to the "it doesn't affect my life one bit what you do" column.I do support SSM and am very happy for friends of mine who now can be "legitimized" in their love for each other. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly I asked my sons (20 and 17) what they thought of the court ruling. They don't even understand why it's an issue. Amazing what a generational divide exists among our population. Agreed! Every time I hear about a valedictorian coming out, or a gay couple going to prom, I think about how different things are from when I went to school. I knew kids who were gay in high school, but they most definitely were not out. My husband runs a kids' camp in a very liberal town, and we have a TON of two mommy and two daddy families who participate in our programs. When my kids talk about parents, they don't assume a male/female partnership. I consider that success. I think we've moved way beyond "tolerance" with this generation, and that is the bee's knees. lol, ok that made me laugh. I don't think it's on the list today, but as the SSM marriage becomes more and more accepted across the country I can assure you it will be at some point in the future. I can also assure you anyone who disagrees with allowing it will be labeled a hater who is against "equal rights". My personal opinion is similar to Josh in that I feel the government should get out of the marriage business period. From a government standpoint marriage isn't a right, it's a civil matter that enables two people to be entitled to legal benefits. Why not make it just that and call it a civil union. However, as I just mentioned even if it's a civil union (or marriage) between two people (regardless of gender) then the next question will be why is it only two people. You should be able to form a union with whoever you want right. So, there will still be fights to change it but society will determine that it's not acceptable "today" to allow three people to marry or for married people to marry other married people etc. However, in 20, 30, 50 years as moral and religious beliefs continue to evolve these things will likely change as well. So, I still say it's a complex issue and it's not just as simple as letting people marry whoever they want, because nobody wants to allow that. We all have limits as to who we feel people should be able to marry. I don't know a lot about polygamy but I do agree there are some and maybe even many that are coerced. I would also say there are many that are completely consensual. So, in order to allow the consensual ones you have to allow the rest. I'm just playing devils advocate here, but what about two 13 year old's getting married (to each other)? What about a brother and sister? Father/Daughter (both adults)? I am not comparing any of these to SSM so please don't interpret it as that. I'm just saying that at some level society through the government is going to have limits on who can get married or be joined in a civil union. Like I said, it's complex. :-/ I think there most certainly can be an age requirement. Hellz, I'm gonna go to jail if I let my 20 year old's friends drink beer in my house, but they can get married? Marriage seems like a bigger commitment than a beer. Brother/Sister--whatever. I've heard that argument before, and it feels rather put-on to me, but sure, why not. I'll take the same stand I take about being pro-choice, I'd rather have the option of choice and no support from biological father, than have biological father tell me what I can and can't do with my body. |
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|