Justices rule on SSM (Page 3)

People were married at 14 before, but the acceptable norm has changed... not to mention a13 year old is not a legal adult and so there is not full authority for them to do what ever they want... legally.

In many states it is OK to marry 1st cousin. I know a co-worker that did... still seems creepy. But the gene pool is so large now that the fears on inbreeding do not really hold water... as far as immediate family... who the heck would want to that isn't under some sort of coercion/cult/control?

To me bans against polygamy holds no water what so ever. If couples can, SS couples can, then what is the argument with polygamy... it is a civil contract between consenting adults on how assets will be shared... it actually blows my mind that polygamists have not brought suit.

Sorry Switch, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you.  I was just trying to come up with examples of the government still needing limits on civil unions or marriage.  Maybe you're right that it's so rare that's it's not even a valid argument.

I remember reading an article a while back about the potential of a father marrying a son to avoid inheritance tax.  It would be a civil union, but for the purpose of tax avoidance.  Maybe that's a better example of there needing to be limitations on civil unions/marriage versus the brother/sister argument. 

I'm pretty much a right wing social beliefs kind of guy, but I'm not authoritarian about my beliefs.  I feel people should be able to make their own choices as long as it doesn't harm others.  Yes, there are those that feel SSM marriage harms children, but I would argue there are far more children harmed in standard marriages.  Loving parents (no matter what makeup) make loving kids period.

And to continue on with Tony as Devil's advocate....

THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE... I'm just asking a question. I am surprised by the comments I have read about attitudes of school kids. That it can turn that quick. And I AGREE with the turn.

However, the public school system is indeed being used as a cultural battlefield by the right and left. Many social conservatives would point to these remarks as proof of the decay of morals being pushed in school and the need to get back to their "brand" of morals.

This subject has me torn on this... because I actually do agree with changing attitudes. It does not matter what my personal opinion is, just that everyone should be free to peruse what ever they want and should not be discriminated against for doing so. And obviously, that statement is ridiculous when applied to race, sexual orientation, gender and what not.

I do not agree with the public school system being used as the cultural battlefield it is now. I believe it should get back to the 3 R's and concentrate on actually turning out academically superior students, instead of "indoctrinating" kids into this left/right political wedge issue thing we have going on now.

So where does proper education and social justice end, and more of the same of using the public school system as a pawn for political gain begin?

But they're not. A couple goes to divorce court and assets are "decided" how to split up. To be legal, polygamists would probably not be able to designate one wife gets less than another, because they would not be "equal". But a court could divide assets based on time in marriage. It would be doubtful the entire family would divorce at the same time.

Power of attorney could define who gets to pull the plug. A will is just a will. Death benefits would be the same, just split up. Custody would be between birth mother and husband. It isn't like it could not be done... and just because it might be different or difficult, does not mean we are allowed to deny equality to all.

My only guess is that those that practice it, actually do hold it as a union between them and God, and don't want the state involved. And they have their own system of dealing with disputes. Mormons are obvious examples, but many many cultures around the world engage in polyamory so it is not that unheard of.

I can barely handle the one I have so it does not matter to me.

Totally agree with this.

Me too!

I'm still puzzled over the "bring back Moon Pies" comment. Bring back from where? I think they're still available here, and a quick glimpse says available on amazon.

You can't separate the two.....I thought everyone knew this.  Or rmaybe it was RC Cola...I guess everyone doesn't know it....or maybe it was just a random thought to make you look up where to find moonpies.   You can't find them around where I live anymore.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! 
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? 
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! 

There's a lot to learn these days from the Thomas More affair.

Thomas More came to understand what constituted The Good, The True, and The Beautiful,
and was willing to defend those realities no matter what.

We live in a time that more and more is ruled by feelings, not disimilar to the forces that Thomas More faced. 

No clue as to how that relates to the initiative mess I discussed in my post......

Well, that quote of mine doesn't relate. It was an answer for switch's question.

The quote from A Man For All Seasons in the earlier post does though.

The government in California wanted a different outcome than the will of the people, and as you pointed out there very well may be unintended consequences down the road.  

Thomas More stood for the law, even if it was to protect the devil himself. Shame on the government of California for not doing the same. (I don't understand the specifics of "standing" enough to comment on the SCOTUS decision itself)

Chris, a followup thought that maybe is clearer.

You like the outcome of the ruling (you and I disagree on that, but that's fine) but you don't like how they got there. You see the potential problems down the road, problems that those more caught up in "feelings" based decisions might be happy to ignore if it means they get what they want now no matter what.

If I'm right about that, then I nominate you for the Thomas More award for clear thinking in Political Joe threads.

So to put some more thoughts out there:

Many people are happy with the Prop 8 decision because it achieved the outcome they wanted, even though it circumvented the will of the people of California.

Many people are happy with the DOMA decision because it disallowed the federal government from defining what marriage is and in so doing will force the federal government to abide by state law. 

OK, I can follow that one: states' rights and all. That's good. I acknowledge that there is no mention of marriage in the US Constitution, so therefore the power ought to rest with the state.

So then will the same "many people" agree that states' rights ought to apply to laws affecting the unborn?  After all, there is no mention of abortion in the US Constitution, and if you're honest you will acknowledge that Roe was a very bad decision on purely legal grounds.

What?... Hold on...

Or that if a state grants a resident a permit to carry a firearm, that permit ought to be recognized by every other state; being that the right to keep and bear arms actually is clearly established in the US Constitution.

What? Hold on... No!!! We just want the right for guys to marry guys and gals to marry gals.

Oh.  I thought we were working toward universally recognized laws that were just; an understanding of law that was not contradictory so that we could all have faith in the system, even when there were laws that we didn't like.

Sorry, my misunderstanding. 

although relative to your next post, I presume they'd glad that they abstained from defending the lower courts decision. When I heard the DOMA ruliing I was worried about the 8 ruling.

Edited by ChrisM 2013-07-01 8:45 PM

As you pointed out, the SCOTUS decisions did not find a right in the Constitution for so called gay marriage.

The LGBT agenda is about changing the definition of marriage. No one is being discriminated against by the traditional/authentic understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

So I don't think your analogy to voter law holds.

This issue is about two understandings of marriage: the traditional/authentic view that understands the conjugal nature of marriage vs. the LGBT revisionist view that it can be between any two persons regardless of gender.

This fight will never go away. I hope the proponents of the LGBT agenda understand that. We on our side understand it.  This issue isn't analogous to miscegenation laws as proponents try to propose. Completely different issue.  We're on the correct side of the issue of the understanding of the nature of what marriage is.

In the short run we'll probably lose more ground, but in the long run we'll win. Without a doubt.

That is not at all what the DOMA decision said... it said the Federal government can discriminate against one group and not another based on the 5th and 14 amendment. It most certainly CAN disallow benefits to gay couple and hetero couple alike.

And it did not strike down DOMA, just that clause, and I agree with that... based purely on law. If a certain portion of the population do not want to see gay couple getting benefits, then they need to petition the government to cat all benefits. Makes sense to me.

And people wonder why I have problems with religion.

God, doesn't care who people marry.  Religion--a construct of humans, a judgement by humans, to control other humans. 

Bummer.

What will be won?

I agree with you to a point.

In its decision, the SCOTUS disregarded the conjugal nature of traditional/authentic marriage and sided with the revisionist interpretation.  If the revisionist version is true, then yes DOMA was unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. If the conjugal version is true, then DOMA is not unconstitutional.

That's my understanding.

I'm sad that you're sad.

I don't wonder why you have a problem with religion. I assume it's based in your judgement.

How do you know what God cares about?

In the long run, the conjugal nature of marriage will be understood to be true.  The traditional/authentic understanding will win out over the revisionist understanding.

One more thought...

One of the curious aspects of this debate is that on the one hand proponents of the revisionist interpretation of marriage will argue for it from a position of morality. They will say in effect that it is immoral to disallow same sex couples from marrying because it is discriminatory, or some such language, and thus immoral.  

That's terrific. It's good to argue for public policy based on morality.

Then though, they will turn around on a dime and say that someone who argues the other side of it and stands up for traditional/authentic marriage has no standing if they do so from a position of morality. For example, they will say don't mix your church with my laws, and so forth.

So they want it both ways: they want to claim the moral high ground while denying their opponents the use of moral arguments.

It's confusing.