SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

I think you hit upon the crux. There is no doubt that throughout history same sex relations occured quite frequently in different cultures and societies. I have never heard of marriages until recently, but I will take your word for it. I doubt if those marriages had legal rights though until now. Recognition and legal standing can be two different things. I have a 1988 version of Websters New World Dictionary Third College Edition which states: The state of being married: relation between husband and wife.

Now the 1993 Webster's 21st Century Dictionary changed husband and wife to spouse. So the definition has changed, at least according to Webster. Not legally binding I know. But yes, what is happening in the good old USA is changing the definition legally.

Small point perhaps. But there can be no doubt the definition has changed. Personally, I have no problem with SSM. I believe the government should stay out of marriage completely. The government should not have a say in who can or can't be married. It should be up to the individuals themselves.

 

Interracial marriage did not fit with the definition of marriage as the states defined it. Nor did marriages in which women had equal say over marital property. The idea that women are equal parties in a marriage was not a commonly understood longstanding definition, and arose in the 20th century western world. You completely ignore the actual history of marriage, and then pretend as if marriage as it exists today is how it existed forever.

Marriage has changed. Marriage means many different things to different people. You have to be a complete ignoramus or liar to think otherwise.

 

That's the thing about society. Society does change, but people who are heavily invested in the status quo will fight any amount of change tooth and nail.

In some ways I can understand, because not all change is for the better.

 

Care to provide even one example from the US prior to 2000.

 

From the dawn of civilization through the 20th century, it has always and everywhere been a relationship between a man and a woman.

 

Because there are many more platonic and closely related heterosexuals that act as a family unit. If you want special treatment for the gays, you need SOME justification for doing so. ANY two people, other than the biological mother and father can join together to provide and care for a child. Rubbing genitals like a real mom and dad doesn't endow gays with superior child raising capabilities.
Biological parents aren't preferred because they are heterosexual. They are preferred because they are the only two people in the world obligated by the birth of their child, to provide and care for that child. Gay couples aren't some kind of second best option.

 

And yet again, the decision before the SCOTUS is SSM. Now, if you or any others want to fight for closely related couples marrying, feel free too. Hell, you might even win. Good luck to you in your endeavors to marry a closely family member.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet again, the decision before the SCOTUS is SSM. Now, if you or any others want to fight for closely related couples marrying, feel free too. Hell, you might even win. Good luck to you in your endeavors to marry a closely family member.

 

As I recall, several posters here have been partners in them since before 2000. But you don't need a list of explicit examples to understand that homosexuality has been part of the human condition since man was definably man, and monogamous relationships are most comfortable for many people, of any orientation.

(One of my favorite composers, Benjamin Britten, lived with his lead tenor singer Peter Pears throughout their lives. Britten lived from 1913 to 1976.)

- - - Updated - - -

This is simply not true. As usual. LEGAL marriage, yes. Marital relationships, not at all. Do you seriously think a marriage happens because some government document says so? Have you ever had a spouse? Do you know what it MEANS to make a marriage work, government or not?

 

"Special privileges"

That doesn't even need mockery. You've made yourself into a bigger joke than I ever could with that phrase.

 

No one considered their relationship to be a "marriage".

- - - Updated - - -

String together a few words and state what it is you disagree with and why, IF YOU CAN! You cant even get a two word quote of mine accurate.

 

Simply true. That's why you cant even provide one example. Usually this is when the gays and their advocates drag out their poster boy Nero. He dressed up his deballed slave to look like his deceased wife and married him. But,

Because

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

 

Why no examples of marriage from the early history of man ...?

Gosh oh gee - let me think. Perhaps it's because people with the anti-gay mindset some have shown in this thread were busy KILLING gay people and IMPRISONING them or just CHEMICALLY CASTRATING them ...

Ya think that gay people might just have gone underground rather than trying marriage. Now that there's some daylight for gay couples to come out in the open and once again, some religious folks and homophobes have rushed to bury them.

So, there isn't going to be a long history of gay marriage ... imagine that. WTF, dude.

 

Oops, you are suffering your usual honesty problems again. THEY considered it a marriage. But they could not get LEGALLY married. So look what you're doing - you are using the law to define marriage, and then saying those who were married anyway weren't "really" married because of the law. Kind of like saying that if a stretch of road has no legal speed limit, those going very very fast are not "speeding". Try being honest for a change.

- - - Updated - - -

I provided examples. I also explained why these are actual marriages in all but law. You are simply lying. I guess it's all you know how to do.

 

What do you mean by "preferred" here?

We have all sorts of ways for couples and singles to acquire kids - inheritance, AI, surrogacy, adoption, previous relationships, sex with someone (possible a spouse), foster programs, etc.

When you claim some sort of state "preference", I really want to know what you are talking about.

 

No they're not, At least not in my state, nor in most others I know of.

You can put your kid up for adoption just about anywhere and anytime. Few questions are asked. You can just "drop off" an unwanted baby at just about any hospital with very few repercussions. Hell, adoption agencies are busted for "buying" babies every year

Gay couples are under a real legal obligation, as is any adoptive parent. There is also little doubt they WANTED the child, as they've gone through several hoops to get it

 

It's not a special privilege. Straight people can do it too.

 

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova

 

You are bothered about gays getting married/parenting children because there are more platonic and closely related heteros that act as a family unit? OK, but I'm not sure I see why that reason bothers you; hetero folk don't get this denied by gays getting the same option. As a married hetero with grown up kids, I don't feel it lessens my marriage or my family unit. Can you expand on why you think it lessens yours?

I'm not sure anyone suggested that there should be special treatement; perhaps only equal treatment. Also, I'm not sure where it was suggested they have superior child raising capabilities.

 

The special TREATMENT would be in permitting gay couples to marry while denying the closely related couples. In traditional marriage, it is limited to opposite sex couples because of the potential of procreation, and the closely related are excluded because of the potential of procreation. There is a rational justification for the special treatment. There is no such justification with gay marriage.

 

No, because our Constitution requires that ANY discrimination in the law must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. You wouldnt understand.

Equal treatment would involve allowing any two consenting adults, equal access to marriage. Allowing gay couples while excluding closely related couples is special treatment for the gays, denied to the closely related, UNEQUAL BY DESIGN, for the benefit of the gays.

 

You havent contradicted a thing Ive said einstein. You cant dispute what you cannot comprehend.

Actually, most children with gay couples, are children from a previous heterosexual relationship of one of them. The other member of the gay couple has no legal relationship to the child and no obligations.

 

Try me. I'm not talking discrimination. I'm not saying they are being discriminated against... and that doesn't appear to answer my question as to why letting them have the same options, affects you.

closely related couples is a different topic; if gays are allowed to get married, I'm sure they should still be held to other proviso's that they cannot be closely related. Of course, that wouldn't make much sense since they can't bear children in the same sense... not that it stops cousins who aren't married.

So whilst you mentioned the topic, why can't cousins get married, but they can still have sex/children out of wedlock. You make a good point - perhaps they should be allowed to get married too. I really don't see how that would affect me either.

 

That would be the preference given to two 18 yr old gay guys allowed to marry, because some day they might choose to adopt a child, denied to the single mother and grandmother joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their children/grandchildren.

 

Actually, in ancient Rome homosexual behavior was widely practiced and accepted. BUT

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

 

You know you keep mentioning this, where are these so called people that are "closely related" and wanting to get married? Your strawman is getting old. Also, if these imaginary people you've dreamed up feel discriminated against because two gay guys can marry, let them take it up with the courts just like those who wanted SSM did. Who knows they might win.