SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

I'm referring to the fact that you aren't consistent with your definition of redefining. It's redefining if you disagree, just a change in law if you don't.

There's no fundamental difference in a contract if you broaden who it applies to, so long as all involved participants consent to the contract.

 

Except when they did in loving.

 

I didn't make anything up. You are just ignoring all other definitions of marriage that exist and have existed as if they never did. You might as well be arguing the earth is flat.

In the past the states outlawed marriages on racial grounds. Today some states outlaw marriages on gendered grounds. Your claim that same-sex marriage is not a form of marriage is simply false. Marriage is defined as between two people of any sex by people, religions, and governments around the globe. Your own personal beliefs don't render those definitions nonexistent.

 

Yes they have...several times in recent history.

Interracial marriage, defining both participants in marriage as equal rather than the man being the sole executor, the head of households laws being abolished.

The list is pretty long if you actually look at history.

 

Thank you for your points. I wonder the date of the state's interest to begin with. Adoption and surrogacy are no problem for population expansion (although perhaps we want to slow it down now), and two dads can be "parents", but I guess not in the typical historical meaning. So perhaps it can be revisited.

I'm hoping that the state doesn't really have any .. bigoted... tendencies behind their reasoning, but I'm smart enough to know that is probably part of the issue.

 

Justice Roberts was quite clear: we are not talking about bringing same sex couples into the institution of marriage, we are talking about changing what the institution is.

Consider this: Most states have outlawed driving while intoxicated. But if a drunk guy gets behind the wheel of a car and starts driving, it's still driving. Likewise, when states outlawed interracial marriage, underage marriage, etc., they did not redefine anything, they only outlawed something that still met the definition of marriage. To be clear, banning interracial marriage did not redefine what marriage was.

Prior to the Netherlands in 2001, legal marriage did not refer to same sex partnerships anywhere. Your made-up definition of it being between "two people of any sex" is unprecedented anywhere before 2001, and remained unprecedented in the U.S. until 2004. But states that choose to change the definition do not have the authority to change it for the entire nation, and the Supreme Court likely does not want to assume that authority either.

 

Driving while intoxicated is illegal, but it's still driving. And interracial marriage was illegal, but it was still marriage. You're reading too much into Loving.

 

If it is illegal it isn't a marriage. I'm not reading too much into anything. I'm correcting your false statement that the court never imposed a definition of marriage over the states. They did so in loving v Virginia.

 

More to the point, not according to any meaning that makes any sense.

What the hell for?

 

So a drunk person driving a car isn't "driving" because what he's doing is illegal? That makes no sense.

 

Huh? Drunk driving has nothing to do with the fact your claim was false. The court mandated a definition of marriage to the states in 1967.

 

A sexual part of marriage was illegal.

 

Please cite which part of the ruling does that, I cannot find it.

 

Can you elaborate? I'm not clear on what you're saying.

 

Yea Polydectes, you kinda dug yourself a hole there.
Cuz you would be inadvertently agreeing that the definition of marriage wasn't affected. Instead pointing to an element commonly associated with a typical marriage.

A sexual part of marriage?
Per chance, can we draw a parallel between that and a drunk part of driving?

Maybe you're in support of the courts defining what is sex then?

 

Please don't pretend to be stupid. Prior to the ruling Virginia banned interracial marriage. Their definition was one man and one woman of the same race. The court said no, your new definition no longer bans interracial couples.

 

Wrong. Their definition of marriage was a man and a woman, and they prohibited whites from doing it with non-whites. They made certain marriages illegal, but they still met the definition of marriage. Just like driving drunk is illegal, but still meets the definition of driving. You need to understand this if you want to understand the Supreme Court's ruling.

 

Lol, it's a demonstrable fact of reality.

Which BY DEFINITION is a DIFFERENT DEFINITION that doing it WITH non whites.

Nope. Their definition of marriage was a man and woman of the same race. The court changed their definition to a man and woman of any race.

This analogy is completely retarded.

.

You need to understand that your claim has been thoroughly disproven. The court changed the states definition of marriage in 1967. This is not a debatable point. You might as well argue that water isn't wet.

 

And Justice Ginsburg was equally clear--the court has already changed what the institution is. What's your point? Quoting a single judge's remarks at oral arguments means absolutely nothing in a logical argumentative sense or a legal one. The idea that women were to be subservient in a marriage was part of the definition of marriage for millennia as well, yet the courts and American culture rejected that definition and changed it. Now the same is happening with same-sex marriage.

If a person obtains a marriage license with another person of the same-sex, it's still a marriage. If a state outlaws marriage between two people of the same-sex, they are excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. Marriage laws set the legal definitions of marriage. In the past, marriage laws defined marriage so interracial couples were excluded. The court forced them to change those legal definitions. The same is the case with same-sex marriages.

Furthermore, same-sex relationships, including those with formal recognition, have existed for thousands of years. They were not called "marriages" because not all cultures used that term at all, though the relationships--gay or straight--were virtually equivalent to Western ideas of marriage. In the English speaking world, the word marriage has not even been around for 1000 years.

Again, Your claim that same-sex marriage is not a form of marriage is simply false. Marriage is defined as between two people of any sex by people, religions, and governments around the globe--even in most widely used English dictionaries. Your own personal beliefs don't render those definitions nonexistent, no matter how much you try.

 

The court was pretty clear in the fact that this is not a new phenomenon and has been an issue since the seventies.

It all comes down to the first question posed to the court which is the question of marriage being a fundamental right. Which the court has set a long precedent of cases which says just that, that marriage is a fundamental right for all people.

I'm fairly certain the outcome will be gay marriage being legalized for the nation.

 

What makes no sense if trying to compare drunk driving and marriage.

So is what you're saying that e states that have legalized gay marriage...and are marrying gays..are those then not marriages?

Your comparison doesn't match up with reality.

 

Verb, can be defined as - "act as a mother or father to someone", for example adoption. Two men can each "act as a father to someone" hence each would be parenting a child.

Because there are many gay people in society that act as a family unit with adopted or surrogate children. I don't particular care if they want to be married, or if they want to be classes as parents (as per the definition above). Why do you?

 

No. Kirchberg v. Feenstra was not about defining marriage at all. It was about the property rights of the members of that marriage - which were always a man and a woman. This is an even further stretch than trying to use Loving. But it's understandable because Ginsberg cares far more about pushing ideology than she does about objective legal analysis.

I didn't say it wasn't, but the issuance of that marriage license is governed by the state, and not all states will issue the license to same-sex couples.

No. This is the false framing you guys keep appealing to. States don't have to outlaw anything. Same-sex couples are excluding themselves from the institution of marriage because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex - which is by definition (in most states) what marriage is.

Cool, what citations or sources do you have for that? Because it was only in the last century that homosexuality became more than an activity that some straight people engaged in and other straight people didn't. People defining their life by their homosexuality is a relatively new concept.

Right back at you. Marriage is defined as "between two people of any sex" only where states or nations have changed the definition of marriage. There are more places that stand by the long-held, commonly understood definition than stand by this new definition that was introduced about 14 years ago.

 

I know, it's like trying to compare race and sexual orientation, right?

No, I'm saying those states have redefined legal marriage for that state (Connecticut's supreme court, for example, was quite clear about that). And that's fine. But I don't think the SCOTUS wants to do that for all 50 states.

 

Not within the same nuclear family, they can't.

There's no reason for anyone to care about that, because none of them do. What they want is to live in the delusion of being married and to force others to acknowledge said delusion as reality under color of law.

Because every child reared under such an arrangement is shortchanged by the lack of a father or a mother, obviously.