SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[TommyGunn]

How does allowing gay marriage disrupt 98 percent of the population?

I said 98.5,   not 98%


Wait and see.

[Balog]

Sorry, I thought that was addressed by pointing out that marriage grants some legal rights between the married couple that are unobtainable by other means, and many that would require extensive and difficult to execute contracts by default.  

So why recognise marriage?  So your spouse can make decisions about your medical care if you're out, automatically inherit your wealth if you die, and rightfully deal with your shared property without question.  Among other major differences from an unrecognised relationship.

Whatever importance you attach to those things, they are not more or less important just because the couple is same sex or not.

Wills and powers of attorney are extensive and difficult to execute? Is that what you tell your clients to justify your billing hours?

But no, that is in no way addressing my question. I didn't ask what the effects are of having a marriage get recognized by the state, nor did I ask why it might be desirable for a couple to have their relationshjip recognized. I asked what the compelling interest is for the .gov to recognize marriage in the first place. What is the basis for .gov recognizing this particular type of relationship? The .gov's interest, not the person's.

[De Selby]

Wills and powers of attorney are extensive and difficult to execute? Is that what you tell your clients to justify your billing hours?

But no, that is in no way addressing my question. I didn't ask what the effects are of having a marriage get recognized by the state, nor did I ask why it might be desirable for a couple to have their relationshjip recognized. I asked what the compelling interest is for the .gov to recognize marriage in the first place. What is the basis for .gov recognizing this particular type of relationship? The .gov's interest, not the person's.

It is generally not possible to recreate a marriage by will, poa, or contract, so no.  I would tell them to get married if they wanted to have all the same rights and powers towards each other that married people do - there isn't another way to do it.

The government's interest is in giving its citizens the reality of the relationship they want to have.  If no one cared about being married, there would be no government interest in recognising marriage.  But that's not the world we live in - people do want those rights.

[Ron]

Okay, well let's try this.  I'll summarize the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here.  Tell me where I've gone wrong.

1.  Most societies prohibit gay marriage
Most societies don't address it because it is an absurdity calling something by what it really isn't.

2.  The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
The dictionary currently just provides a historically accurate definition of the custom. It doesn't create the custom by fiat.

3.  Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection - Nobody wants to deny legal protection, as has been pointed out legal protection is provided outside of the bounds of matrimony for those who seek it out.

4.  There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages - if observing reality is considered discrimination then maybe you have a point

5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract - On the contrary there is also millennia of cultural and moral dimensions that preclude same sex arrangements falsely being called a marriage.

Therefore:  banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Correct

[Fitz]

How does allowing gay marriage disrupt 98 percent of the population?

Sorry, I gotta back DS here.

[KD5NRH]

One issue I see here is comparing it to a driver's license in terms of recognition by all states, and using that as justification for forcing states to allow it.

What would happen if a state refused to issue driver's licenses at all?  Assume they honor all other states' licenses, just don't issue any themselves, allowing their residents to drive within the state without a license but not providing them any way to drive elsewhere legally unless/until some adjoining state starts offering non-resident licenses.  Also assume they do offer a state ID card, so there's no valid argument on that point.  Would the Federal government then be justified in forcing them to return to issuing driver's licenses?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

This could never happen we are told

But it took very lil time

The camels nose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BlueStarLizzard]

Well, De Selby, perhaps that is because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion. For example, you have yet to tell me what you believe the purpose of the .gov recognizing marriage for anyone is. But I don't really expect you to do so.

Which is a point I made much earlier in this thread.

I don't think .gov should be involved in any marriage.

However, as the laws currently stand, .gov is involved and as long as it is, the .gov definition of marriage must be all inclusive.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

The issue isn't that the bible is wrong or right, it's that not every believes in it, yet everyone is bound by our laws.  Hence our laws shouldn't force people to behave a certain way just because the bible says so.

This SCOTUS decision does just that. Forces folks to toe the gay marriage line. Forces people to adhere to situations that for whatever reasons they do no want to adhere to:  cake making, performing marriages etc...

Just wait. There will be an outcry for criminal penalties for those who do not want anything to do with gay marriage. And there is the problem. Forcing people to accept what they do not find acceptable.

The gay movement with regards to gay marriage has shot itself in the foot on this. "Don't you worry what we do in our bedroom", to "you will accept, recognize and celebrate what we do in our bedroom"

[KD5NRH]

if observing reality is considered discrimination then maybe you have a point

Apparently it is in current society.

This could never happen we are told

Same as everything that is an obvious consequence of whatever idiocy is in vogue at the moment.  Then when each thing happens, it becomes "oops, so we were wrong once, but that doesn't mean any of the other consequences will happen."  Lather, rinse, repeat as they do.

[AJ Dual]

This could never happen we are told

But it took very lil time

The camels nose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This isn't clear if they're going to force an RC church, or a different Lutheran synod one to perform gay marriage. I strongly suspect it's the Folkekirken, or Danish state Lutheran church, because if it's the state church, and gay marriage is legal/approved there, I fail to see how the state church can refuse to perform it.

There was a similar kerfluffle a year or two ago from another Scandinavian country over this, and it was the same thing. The article was either assuming the reader knew the implied scope of the decision, or it was intentionally vague to upset people.

[Ron]

Sorry, I gotta back DS here.

I've tried to avoid the slippery slope argument but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. This is the cudgel that will be used to destroy religious liberty, actually liberty of conscience,  in the USA.


Teaching children that homosexuality is immoral will bring state intrusion into religious institutions.

Freedom of association, gone  
Freedom of speech, gone
Freedom of conscience, gone

There is plenty at stake allowing government to redefine cultural institutions based on egalitarianism.

Individual liberty and radical egalitarianism are mutually exclusive.    

 

[Perd Hapley]

Whatever importance you attach to those things, they are not more or less important just because the couple is same sex or not.

Let's suppose this is true (it's not). If true, why did marriage (or marriage-like arrangements, if you prefer) spring up around opposite-sex relationships in every culture on Earth, but this did not happen with same-sex couples? What could explain that? It can't be religion, as this spans some very different belief systems. Any ideas?

[KD5NRH]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Gay or not, that suit should be justification for stoning.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

1.  Most societies prohibit gay marriage
Most societies don't address it because it is an absurdity calling something by what it really isn't.

2.  The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
The dictionary currently just provides a historically accurate definition of the custom. It doesn't create the custom by fiat.

3.  Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection - Nobody wants to deny legal protection, as has been pointed out legal protection is provided outside of the bounds of matrimony for those who seek it out.

4.  There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages - if observing reality is considered discrimination then maybe you have a point

5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract - On the contrary there is also millennia of cultural and moral dimensions that preclude same sex arrangements falsely being called a marriage.

Therefore:  banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Correct

Ron is right.  Gay marriage isn't prohibited historically, it's false historically.  Marriage is what it is, and isn't what it isn't.  Objective truth may be passe these days, but it's still as true as it always has been.

Marriage is heterosexual not because of its definition or its legal prohibitions and permissions, but because of the basic realities of human nature, society, and biology.  Those realities were recognized across the ages and and across all societies because they are fundamentally true and right.  

Changing the definition of marriage won't change the reality of marriage.  At best all it does is institutionalize stupidity.  At worst, consequences.  We'll all see them soon enough.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

More of " don't worry it will never happen"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[makattak]

Okay, well let's try this.  I'll summarise the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here.  Tell me where I've gone wrong.

1.  Most societies prohibit gay marriage

2.  The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage

3.  Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection

4.  There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages

5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract

Therefore:  banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.

It looks to me like every single one of those points has been addressed explicitly and directly here. 

If you replace the word "explicitly" with "superficially", I'll agree 100%.

Further, you did not answer Balog's question. You answered with a result, not a reason.

That's like me asking you why you shot the deer and you respond with "so the deer would be shot". He asked why the government has chosen to acknowledge certain relationships and why, by extension, the government should now include homosexual relationships with that reasoning.

The laws around marriage have grown up for at least hundreds of years (I'm limiting this to English Common Law, although I could argue for thousands) within the common law and legislation for a relationship between a man and a woman. Now, with the grafting of homosexual relationships to this ancient institution, we now have laws applying to people for whom the organic growth did not apply.

We've done as my quote from Mr. Chesterton warned: who cares why these laws exist. I say they are unfair because they only existed because of DISCRIMINATION!11!!!1eleventy!

Also, bravo, you've gotten me answering your questions as though you are arguing in good faith. That takes some doing- excellent change in tactics.

[White Horseradish]

proscription against  murder is Biblically based

There is no proscription against murder in Buddhist countries? Or are theirs also Biblical based, even though they have no Bible?

This could never happen we are told

But it took very lil time

The camels nose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This has been discussed here many times. Denmark has a state church that is actually run by their government. So, yes, it could not happen here.

More of " don't worry it will never happen"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Church of England.


You know they aren't governed by our laws, right?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

When they made gay marriage legal in both places they/we were assured that there would be no worries about churches being forced to marry gay couples. In particular churches that are opposed to gay marriage. It took how long to happen?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wmenorr67]

I LIKE BACON.

[charby]

I LIKE BACON.

How about a bacon pie?

[wmenorr67]

BACON!!!!!!!!

[Angel Eyes]

I LIKE BACON.

So why don't you marry it?

[cordex]

You know they aren't governed by our laws, right?

Care to wager on how long it will be before similar lawsuits are brought in the US?

Sorry, I gotta back DS here.

Would you or De Selby like to make the above wager?

[charby]

So why don't you marry it?

because once you eat it, it turns to poop. :)