U.S. Supreme Court upholds right to Marry in all 50 States

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:58 am

The United States Supreme Court today held: same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 50 States.
".... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:34 am

Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 67 by bluethread]

Marriage is just a word like any other, if you want a contract that's slightly different to the government's definition of marriage, and it's within the law, go ahead. You're free to call it marriage, that may even be a reasonable description of it, even if it doesn't match the government's definition.

The government is just providing a set of standards under which you may more easily and safely "marry". Other people might not consider your non-standard marriage to be a marriage (just as some don't consider same-sex or non-religious marriages to be marriages); the main purpose of standards is to provide something most can conform to with greater convenience and/or other motivating factors for whatever group controls the standard. (Typically the motivating factors of those using it.)

That's mostly the same issue as different usage of a word. You can disagree with a dictionary too, and you can be reasonable in doing so.
That latter is my point. Until relatively recently, ie. 1967, marriage was considered a state or local issue, in these United States. Admittedly, including a marriage status in the IRS code beginning in 1918 does introduce a federal interest in marriage. However, even then marriage status was accepted based on whether it was in accordance with the laws of the various states.

I don't think the government should have some of laws they do on marriage, e.g. exceptions exclusively to married couples.
If you do not think the federal government should be giving special treatment to those who are married, why should the federal government be recognizing marriage at all?

Banning contracts forced under duress doesn't seem draconian to me, surely enforcing such a contract would be draconian?
Look again at what I posted.

"As I pointed out, you appear to be implying that governments not only have an obligation to protect people from abusive contracts, but also have an obligation to define the nature of a given contract, it's scope and it's availability to the public in general. That may seem somewhat matter of fact to someone who has been socialized to accept that kind of micromanagement. However, historically, that view is rather draconian."

It is the bold part that is historically draconian. Protection against abusive contracts, not so much.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:28 am

[Replying to Korah]
Actually I am quite astute into literature. I just don't take that as history. After all it is fiction for a reason. Yes European property laws led to incest among the upper classes. Especially royalty, this was evident in subsequent generations and a few particular lines of nobility. However, this was not as common as you would think and typically is sensationalized. Additionally if you look at humanity as a whole and not just a particular slice into a particular time period in a particular region it is not as dire as you point out. Most societies discourage relations with 1st degree relatives and to a lesser extent second degree relatives. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see the results of such an arrangement.

Korah · Post by **Korah** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:17 am

[Replying to post 72 by DanieltheDragon]
So incest is not OK, but there should be no laws against it? Basically people will do whatever they can get away with--but you disagree with me?
So you've heard about the great English poet Lord Byron and his sister? That was real life, not literature. But that was 200 years ago, so no need to worry now about this kind of thing?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:05 pm

bluethread wrote:
I don't think the government should have some of laws they do on marriage, e.g. exceptions exclusively to married couples.
If you do not think the federal government should be giving special treatment to those who are married, why should the federal government be recognizing marriage at all?

I think there are situations where marriage should be prioritised, e.g. task forces against forced marriage, as it's so common and is a problem. Could probably be rephrased without mentioning marriage, so perhaps.

Banning contracts forced under duress doesn't seem draconian to me, surely enforcing such a contract would be draconian?
Look again at what I posted.

"As I pointed out, you appear to be implying that governments not only have an obligation to protect people from abusive contracts, but also have an obligation to define the nature of a given contract, it's scope and it's availability to the public in general. That may seem somewhat matter of fact to someone who has been socialized to accept that kind of micromanagement. However, historically, that view is rather draconian."

It is the bold part that is historically draconian. Protection against abusive contracts, not so much.

But all they do is offer a standard definition and prevent contracts under duress.
They don't define the nature of some given contract, they define their contract. Couples can and do make their own contracts, some of which relate to government marriage (i.e. contracts on rights to children). All the government does is provide a contract and call it marriage.

Your contract can't give away your human rights, and it can't be signed under duress. Other than that, pretty much the same laws as anyone else. I don't see how that's draconian.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:10 pm

[Replying to post 73 by Korah]

Do you feel compelled to have sex with your siblings? Do you know anyone compelled to have sex with their siblings?

KenRU · Post by **KenRU** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:50 am

bluethread wrote:
Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

I just found it interesting that there is actually an argument from same sex marriage to marriage of relatives, albeit in disuse.

What about permanently infertile opposite sex relatives?
Relatives who're temporarily infertile? (e.g. some forms of surgical contraception)
What about relatives who'd abort? (and relatives who'd forgo sex)

Conversely, what about people with genetic diseases having any potentially fertile sex at all? (And the inbred/those born from incest)
This is why it is not wise to base public policy on the exceptions. There is no end to them. Laws should serve a specific social good or restrain a particular social ill. It shouldn't be about currying favor with certain voter constituencies.

The recent ruling by the supreme court does serve the social good. I don't see how this is debatable.

KenRU · Post by **KenRU** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:15 pm

Talk about hitting the panic button ...

The fact that allowing two people of the same sex to enter into the same marriage contract allowed to heterosexual couples automatically steers one to concerns about incest, polygamy and bestiality screams overreation - at the highest decibels possible. Marriage is what society decides it will be. Simple.

No one is being forced into or to prerform a same-sex marriage. So, if your religious (or moral) belief system screams out SIN or IMMORALITY, why do you care? This decision impacts you not one iota.

When SCOTUS rules incestuous marriages are suddenly legal (raising genetic defect issues), or that the polygamy laws have been rescinded or are being challenged in court (tax implications/child rearing issues) then start a thread. You'll probably have some atheists/non-theists/agnostics jump ship. I might very well join the outcry in some of them. But same sex marriages? Really? I have yet to hear one compelling argument why this shouldn't be allowed to happen. Why should same sex couples not be allowed to wed the same as heterosexual couples?

Why anyone can't see this as an equality issue is baffling.

All the best,

Korah · Post by **Korah** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:40 pm

[Replying to post 77 by KenRU]
I'm still waiting for Post #75 to be taken down (removed, deleted) from this website before I help mess up the sequence numbering by myself posting here.
I can't "Report" it now, because I reported it immediately, and I know the Mod Squad received it because the "!" key has been removed to let me know not to think the Report did not take, so I don't confuse the issue by reporting it again.
Hello, mods. Anyone home?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:46 am

Korah wrote: [Replying to post 69 by DanieltheDragon]
Haven't read many English novels, have we, hmmm?
The ultimate terror in any English novel of the 19th century was marrying poor or not marrying at all (and being a "spinster" and having to live at the mercies of her close relatives). (Yes, we're talking about our beloved Jane Austen.)
Thus where primogeniture was dictating that all the property was going to go to the younger uncle's son, such a need for our "poor" (in the future presumably) heroine to seek an arranged marriage with the young first cousin.

The ultimate terror in English novels is having' to read 'em.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:55 am

[Replying to post 73 by Korah]

I would also like to point out I don't think incest is ok, there is a seeming genetic aversion to it that requires certain environmental impetus to manipulate two consenting adults into an incestuous relationship. The majority of incestuous cases are also non consensual. Just look at Josh Duggar as an example.

Debating Christianity and Religion