Justices rule on SSM (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood 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. :-/ 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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by tuwood 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. :-/ 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. The main argument against it IMO, is the current set up of our legal system. Basically all of the "benefits" that are associated with marriage are set up for a two party arrangement. Honestly, I don't have any problem if someone wanted multiple spouses as long as they aren't forced. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch 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. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 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? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by JoshR The main argument against it IMO, is the current set up of our legal system. Basically all of the "benefits" that are associated with marriage are set up for a two party arrangement. Honestly, I don't have any problem if someone wanted multiple spouses as long as they aren't forced. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Science Nerd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by JoshR 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. Totally agree with this. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain 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. 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
Me too! |
![]() ![]() |
Resident Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain
What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi 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. Edited by the bear 2013-07-01 7:15 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by the bear Originally posted by Left Brain
What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi 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. Edited by Left Brain 2013-07-01 8:40 AM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChrisM 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.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
There's a lot to learn these days from the Thomas More affair. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy And what exactly, in your own words, would that be?Originally posted by ChrisM 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.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
There's a lot to learn these days from the Thomas More affair. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch And what exactly, in your own words, would that be? Thomas More came to understand what constituted The Good, The True, and The Beautiful, We live in a time that more and more is ruled by feelings, not disimilar to the forces that Thomas More faced. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by dontracy Originally posted by switch And what exactly, in your own words, would that be? Thomas More came to understand what constituted The Good, The True, and The Beautiful, 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...... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChrisM 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) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChrisM No clue as to how that relates to the initiative mess I discussed in my post...... 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. Edited by dontracy 2013-07-01 5:47 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by dontracy Well I can't take credit for it. Originally posted by ChrisM No clue as to how that relates to the initiative mess I discussed in my post...... 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. ![]() 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChrisM that said, your post misses a huge point. State voters cannot, for example pass law disenfranchising Asians from voting in state elections. If law is unconstitutional no matter how popular it cannot stand. They never got to adjudicate 8 however 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. Edited by dontracy 2013-07-01 8:58 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy 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. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy Don, your judgement of others, yet again, is saddening. Originally posted by ChrisM that said, your post misses a huge point. State voters cannot, for example pass law disenfranchising Asians from voting in state elections. If law is unconstitutional no matter how popular it cannot stand. They never got to adjudicate 8 however 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. :) 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. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy In the short run we'll probably lose more ground, but in the long run we'll win. Without a doubt. What will be won? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman 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. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Don, your judgement of others, yet again, is saddening. 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. 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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman What will be won? 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.
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|