SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Obviously?

We could point out the numerous incidences of mothers killing their children while the father was out of the house, or of fathers killing an entire family. Bet those kids would have taken a stable homosexual family any day over what they ended up with ...

 

What is there, an echo in here?

And the disgracefully gullible would be very impressed indeed.

Guarantee they'd take a stable traditional family over either.

 

In few years gay marriage will be allowed in Saudi Arabia

 

Absolute nonsense. There have always been gay people, they just weren't permitted, in some cultures but by no means all, to describe themselves as such.

That society wouldn't admit that some people weren't straight doesn't mean it's not true; it means that society was burying its head in the sand just like Iran today which claims there are no gay people.

I've met numerous gay people, some of whom are absolutely repulsed by the notion of any kind of intimate contact with someone of the opposite sex. Do you honestly believe that they are "straight" people just "engaging in homosexuality" because that beggars belief?

Maybe the thought that they might be exiled, arrested, imprisoned, experimented upon or even killed were reasons enough for them to pretend to be straight in order to evade such fate?

I can tell you with authority that straight people don't have to pretend to be straight for any reason, in fact they enjoy it quite a lot, as do gays now that they're finally allowed to start being themselves instead of pandering to everybody else's expectations.

 

I wouldn't say that I feel free to be openly gay in the same way that straight people are openly straight. Not by a long shot.

 

That's what happens eventually with every big constitutional question. After a period of time it becomes more and more of a problem for the lower courts and the supreme court eventually steps in and makes a ruling to give guidance.

 

It was absolutely about defining marriage. The definition of marriage in Louisiana held that the husband was the sole controller of marital property. If you know anything about the history of marriage, you would know such a law was in place precisely because marriage was defined as a relationship where the man was dominant over the woman. The law giving the man such control was perfectly in line with this tradition, which the court rejected. Louisiana was forced to redefine it's marriage laws, and today the idea that women are subservient in marriage is no longer part of the definition at all, even though it was the way of things for centuries. To say that case had nothing to do with marriage is to demonstrate absolute ignorance about the history of marriage and the case itself.

If marriage is soley governed by the states, why can states not pass laws prohibiting interracial marriage? Why can't they redefine marriage however they want? Oh right...because marriage is governed by the states insofar as they do not violate the federal Constitution. So no, the argument marriage is merely a state issue is blatantly false.

No, the state is picking and choosing who can marry who and excluding same-sex couples, period. If interracial marriage was banned, would you say interracial couples are excluding themselves from the institution of marriage because they don't want to marry someone of the same race? Of course not. It is incredibly dishonest to say otherwise--and the court has never viewed the issue otherwise either.

The above illustrates your immense ignorance. Homosexuality is not an "activity" that people engage in. Nor did it suddenly appear in the past century, and nor do people define their life by their sexual orientation. As for sources, just look at wikipedia for a general overview. Again, you prove your opinions are rooted in sheer ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

Among indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization, a common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans, and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex.

In East Asia, same-sex love has been referred to since the earliest recorded history.

In the Symposium (182B-D), Plato equates acceptance of homosexuality with democracy, and its suppression with despotism, saying that homosexuality "is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic governments, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce".[7] Aristotle, in the Politics, dismissed Plato's ideas about abolishing homosexuality (2.4); he explains that barbarians like the Celts accorded it a special honour (2.6.6), while the Cretans used it to regulate the population (2.7.5).

Not only did it exist, it was widely talked about. That you have no knowledge of any of this is truly astounding.

States and nations do not have exclusive ownership over the definition of marriage. Marriage exists as a cultural, religious, and societal institution regardless of whether governments recognize such definitions. Nor was this definition introduced 14 years ago. What you hold in your mind as facts couldn't be farther from them. You have let your own prejudice cloud your perception of truth and reality.

 

Why not? Acting as a father is different from physically fathering.

Marriage is a delusion? Well, if so why not let others join the delusion? I'm still not sure why I, or anyone else, would care.

Then so are those who are orphaned, in foster care, lost a parent to death - or simply from a couple who are not committed to each other, are also in the same boat. I'd imagine putting a foster care child into a caring environment that has two parental figures looking after them is good for the system and the child.

 

This is simply not true

 

You are reading your own agenda into that ruling. There were plenty of marriages in Louisiana where the husband did not dominate over his wife. Do you think that men who treated their wives with equality, respect, and deference were at risk of the state coming along and dissolving their marriage? No. The law was about property rights within a marriage, and "marriage" was legally understood to mean union between a man and a woman. Nothing about that definition changed as a result of this ruling.

Because interracial marriage still meets the understood definition of "marriage." States cannot pick and choose who someone can marry, let alone limit the selection by race.

No, the state says marriage is a thing, a union between a man and a woman, and any man can marry any woman regardless of race or sexual orientation. If a man wants to marry a man then he needs to do it in a jurisdiction that has redefined marriage for that jurisdiction.

What's astounding is how consistently you misinterpret what other people write. It's no surprise you're having so much trouble interpreting legal decisions. I never said homosexuality didn't exist or that it only appeared in the last century. In the past, homosexuality was not an identity, it was an activity. Your own quote from Plato makes my point: he groups homosexuality with philosophy and athletics, not race or tribe or religion. That's not an insult, it's recognizing it for how it was historically viewed by cultures and governments. I'm not even trying to argue that it was "right," just refuting your claim that same-sex relationships had "formal recognition" for, in your words, "thousands of years." If you only mean that there is a written historical record of dudes nailing each other then fine, but that is hardly "formal recognition" on the order of modern-day legal marriage.

I'll agree with you there. Marriage predates governments. Marriage was always between a man and a woman. U.S. state governments elected to formally recognize those relationships. For a state to now recognize relationships between same sex couples, they must change the institution of marriage, as some states (and nations) have done. But a state that does not change it is not excluding anyone from anything, it is only retaining the original legal definition.

 

This is key- and soon they will not be able to limit it by gender. Not really much of a big deal at all. BTW, the "understood" definition of marriage back then was that the races could not mix in marriage. It was unheard of.

Why is it that you anti gay marriage people are so hung up on guys? You never mention two "chicks nailing each other". It's always two guys that freak you out. Hmm...wonder why? Actually, I know the answer, but do you?

 

Because a child can only have one father.

Are you asking such an idiotic question in hopes of irritating me, or for some other reason?

No they aren't, because orphans aren't shortchanged by a willful act of the parents.

 

Many of those kids ARE in foster homes or orphaned BECAUSE of a willful act of the parents. i.e. Parents going to jail, parents putting their kids up for adoption, or even abandoning them to the state.

Not only that single mothers and fathers out there due to divorce is a willful act as well.

As someone who has seen two gay couples raise normal heterosexual children, the premise that gay couple's don't have the ability to raise children is simply false. We do not live in a bubble where sexual orientation is the ONLY trait that affects children. There are HORRIBLE heterosexual and homosexual parents out there and their orientation has very little to do with the other factors that make them horrible.

Why some are so obsessed with sexual orientation being the ONLY trait to look at for parenting is silly at best.

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic. In what way? I think you are mixing your nouns and verbs.

You said marriage is a delusion... it's difficult to be irritated by forum chat.

Wilful? Orphans maybe not, other scenario - yes. They still don't have one (or both) whether it was wilful or not.

 

Then one fairly shudders to think what passes for logic that you can follow.

I said no such thing, obviously.

 

No I am not. The idea that a man was dominant in a marriage was enshrined into the Louisiana law. As far as the state concerned that was the definition of marriage. And the courts said no to that definition, and they said no to the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race as well.

Understood by who? If a state understands the definition of marriage to be between couples of the same race, by your logic they should be able to define it that way. But they can't, because states do not have exclusive authority over defining marriage. They can not pick and choose who someone can marry if doing so violates the 14th amendment. They cannot limit the selection by race, and soon the court will rule they cannot limit the selection by gender either.

Yes, and states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry are picking and choosing who can get married and excluding same-sex couples from marrying. When state laws specifically say that same-sex couples cannot get married, how on earth can you believe they are not being excluded from marriage? Your argument is as irrational as they come.

No misinterpretation at all. I am directly refuting your nonsensical, ignorant argument that homosexuality was merely an activity in the past. Homosexuality is, was, and always has been a sexual orientation. It has never been just an "activity". Restating the same false claim is not an argument.

I just gave you specific examples of same-sex relationships having formal recognition thousands of years ago, and you completely ignored them. As to Plato, he was talking about the acceptance of homosexuality, and arguing that lack of such acceptance was equivalent to barbarism and tyranny.

Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, nor has the nature of such a relationship been the same throughout time and across cultures. The institution of marriage has constantly changed. And states are not retaining the original legal definition. The original legal definition made no mention of prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. States changed the definition to exclude same-sex couples beginning at the end of the 20th century. A state that says same-sex couples cannot marry is excluding same-sex couples from marrying. Period. You can argue they have a right to exclude them, but that they are excluded is not up for debate. Period.

 

Ah, you're one of those. Gotcha.

 

As a guy and in my younger days, the idea of two chicks doing their thing together or the idea of a twosome, threesome with you or me was/is a arousing fantasy. Again as a guy, the idea of two guys making it was disgusting.

Now I may be the wrong one to reply to your question, I have no problem with SSM. It just isn't a hot issue with me and whether a candidate for office is pro or anti SSM is irrelevant in deciding whom I vote for. In fact looking at Gallup's list of the top 20 issues for 2016, SSM didn't make the list.

SSM is a hot issue on sites like this, but if we were not more political active than probably 99% of other Americans we wouldn't be here. I think the majority of Americans do not care one way or the other or if they do it is just in passing. In other words, SSM is not a game changes or the elephant in the rooms as the thread implies. Only among the very active few.

But yes, I think most guys have had the fantasy of watching two women get it on and probably some have succeeded in that fantasy but won't admit it.

 

Unheard of? Interracial marriage predates the Racial Integrity Act by thousands of years. When Pocahontas married John Rolfe, they didn't have to change the definition of marriage for it to happen. In fact, interracial marriage was not illegal until laws were passed against it. This is unlike same sex marriage where same sex unions were always considered outside the legal definition of marriage until states changed their definition of marriage to accommodate them.

 

I thought the whole reason for prop 8 and the like was to make the legal definition of marriage exclude same sex couples.




​

 

It does today.




​

 

A terrible read on the law and the court ruling, but keep holding onto it if it makes you feel better.

Everybody. Literally everybody. The word "marriage" had such a common understanding that it was unnecessary to clarify its meaning in state law, that's how well understood the definition of marriage was.

Again, interracial marriage already fit within the definition of marriage! States had to pass laws to prohibit interracial marriage because the understood definition of marriage allowed for any combination of race; but it never allowed for any combination of gender.

No, they are retaining the long-held definition of marriage between a man and a woman. A man can pick any woman, a woman can pick any man; but a man picking a man is pursuing a relationship that is outside the definition of marriage.

Please cite a specific state law, with the text, because the ones I know of do not "specifically say that same-sex couples cannot get married." The ones I'm aware of merely clarify that as far as state law goes, marriage means what it has always meant: a man and a woman.

It seems you don't understand how the Greeks viewed it.

I realize SSM advocates keep saying that, but it is obviously not true as evidenced by the repeated, failed attempts to use interracial marriage as their proof.

Because they didn't have to! Everyone already knew what the word meant and what the institution was.

States didn't change the definition, they clarified adherence to the longstanding, commonly understood definition (not until the 21st century, by the way) because some state courts were changing the definition to include same sex couples. This is about whether or not the Supreme Court can and should change that definition for the whole country.

 

As it did in 1614 when Pocahontas married John Rolfe. And in 1952 when Pearl Bailey married Louie Bellson. And in 1899 when Samuel Colridge-Taylor married Jessie Walmisley. Frederick Douglass married Helen Pitts in 1882. There were numerous marriages between interracial couples before 1967.

Before 2001, when was "marriage" ever used to describe a relationship between two people of the same gender?

 

Virginia, 1964 many folks argued a relationship outside your race wasn't a marriage. It didn't fit the understood definition. Some folks disagreed and described themselves as married. Some of them were same sex couples.




​

 

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree. Throughout human history, there have been countless durable, loyal, loving, dedicated monogamous same-sex couples. In every social sense, these relationships were marriages. In fact, many of them had weddings. They exchanged the same vows, and meant them in the same way, as any couple. What is recent in the US is the move to grant these relationships legal recognition. The legal benefits of such recognition aren't all that big a deal except in unusual cases. As you're aware, today the majority of opposite-sex relationships, even long-lasting and devoted ones, are choosing not to take advantage of legal marriage. If my wife and I had never decided to marry, nothing would have been different about our relationship, except possibly we'd have executed a few CYA powers of attorney for allocation of property.

So if you look at it rationally, the definition of marriage isn't changing, and the relationships covered by the legal institution aren't changing either. This is a fight for recognition of what has always existed, not a fight for anything new or different.