Page 109 of 112 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,090 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #1081
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    And yet, marriage didn't have to be redefined into some freak charicature of the standard male/female socially endorsed family relationship in order for women to have equal rights. So what's your argument here, then? Do you figure women will magically get even more equality once homosexuals can marry? (yeah, that was an oxymoron on two counts). Marriage is still essentially what it's always been; one man and one woman coming together to form a union. The roles and expectations of those roles have changed but the relationship model hasn't changed at all.... Until now, that is.
    It isn't being "redefined" legally. It is simply allowing more people in. Your personal definition of marriage is not the legal definition of marriage. Legally, the definition of marriage rests in how exactly marriage functions within the laws. It is gender-neutral, so there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by having a gender based restriction on marriage.

    Oh, and yes, women (and men) will get more equality here once same sex marriage is legal across the country because a woman will be able to marry a woman, something a woman cannot do now only because she is a woman.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 07-01-13 at 11:33 AM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #1082
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It isn't being "redefined" legally. It is simply allowing more people in. Your personal definition of marriage is not the legal definition of marriage. Legally, the definition of marriage rests in how exactly marriage functions within the laws. It is gender-neutral, so there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by having a gender based restriction on marriage.

    Oh, and yes, women (and men) will get more equality here once same sex marriage is legal across the country because a woman will be able to marry a woman, something a woman cannot do now only because she is a woman.
    You do have to redefine marriage if the definition was "a man and woman united in holy matrimony under the laws of the state" and you want to change it to make homosexual marriage possible. Homosexual marriage can't exist under that definition.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #1083
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You do have to redefine marriage if the definition was "a man and woman united in holy matrimony under the laws of the state" and you want to change it to make homosexual marriage possible. Homosexual marriage can't exist under that definition.

    You guys keep bringing up the "definition of marriage" as if you have some claim to ownership over it, and that changing said definition is somehow just a terrible thing. Why? Are you married? If so, would you love your wife less if two dudes get married? Fight more? Love your children any less?

    Can you own a word?

    Because I have a startling revelation for you: two dudes can get married in quite a few places now, and society does not appear to have collapsed as a result.

    edit: keep in mind that this post is made in the context of how the government treats a marriage contract. Your church can continue to believe whatever it wants, practice however it wants. Nobody cares if you don't want to host gay wedding ceremonies. Gay people don't want to get married there anyway.
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-01-13 at 11:43 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #1084
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    CC, the laws governing marriage don't explain what marriage is in place for and don't need to. But the purpose of marriage IS critical to any argument hinging on a claim that homosexual marriage advances the purpose. State sanctioned marriage IS in place for a purpose. There IS a reason why we created this entity and it is, in fact, a legal entity, at least in some states. What you are trying to do is pound a square peg into a round hole with a hammer of ignorance that pretends the hole has no shape.
    Yes they do. Marriage laws cover property distribution in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover child support and custody in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover where a person's assets go if they die married and without a will. Marriage laws cover who has highest legal authority in decision making ability of a person who is married if other paperwork is not in place, such as medical directives or burial requests in wills, or whether to pull someone off life support (remember the Terry Schiavo incident, and how her husband ultimately got that final say...marriage, right of spouse). Marriage makes a spouse a legal family member, and in a limited way, their family legal family members of another person (where do you think we got the term "in-laws"?). Marriage makes your spouse your legal dependent in certain business transactions and jobs. You don't need marriage to get these things for your children. Even the child support and child custody is fought in court pretty much the same way whether the parents have been married or not (marriage just puts this dispute as part of the divorce as a whole, instead of having to be fought by itself since divorce involves separation of property/assets, whereas a simple breakup doesn't legally involve this most of the time).

    Marriage, within our laws, is much more about the spouses, than it is about the children. It benefits the children, but not in every case, nor even by purpose.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #1085
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You do have to redefine marriage if the definition was "a man and woman united in holy matrimony under the laws of the state" and you want to change it to make homosexual marriage possible. Homosexual marriage can't exist under that definition.
    That is redefining a restriction on marriage, not marriage itself. That is no different than removing the restriction on race. It is a change in restriction, not marriage itself.

    Oh, and last I looked, holy matrimony is not a legal part of marriage. Holy matrimony is a part of personal marriages, not legal/civil marriages.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #1086
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Yes they do. Marriage laws cover property distribution in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover child support and custody in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover where a person's assets go if they die married and without a will. Marriage laws cover who has highest legal authority in decision making ability of a person who is married if other paperwork is not in place, such as medical directives or burial requests in wills, or whether to pull someone off life support (remember the Terry Schiavo incident, and how her husband ultimately got that final say...marriage, right of spouse). Marriage makes a spouse a legal family member, and in a limited way, their family legal family members of another person (where do you think we got the term "in-laws"?). Marriage makes your spouse your legal dependent in certain business transactions and jobs. You don't need marriage to get these things for your children. Even the child support and child custody is fought in court pretty much the same way whether the parents have been married or not (marriage just puts this dispute as part of the divorce as a whole, instead of having to be fought by itself since divorce involves separation of property/assets, whereas a simple breakup doesn't legally involve this most of the time).

    Marriage, within our laws, is much more about the spouses, than it is about the children. It benefits the children, but not in every case, nor even by purpose.
    All those areas of marriage law were put in place for the sake of the biological family unit marriage sanctions and supports. Most of what you mentioned is DIVORCE law; a set of laws that had to be developed AFTER marriage laws were created and established to provide a remedy to those seeking to dissolve a marriage contract. The details of divorce law don't tell us what marriage was created for. They just tell us what we have agreed should be an appropriate remedy for dissolving a marriage.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #1087
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    That is redefining a restriction on marriage, not marriage itself. That is no different than removing the restriction on race. It is a change in restriction, not marriage itself.

    Oh, and last I looked, holy matrimony is not a legal part of marriage. Holy matrimony is a part of personal marriages, not legal/civil marriages.
    No, but "man and woman" are. At least in 37 states at present. That was the point, but nice red herring there.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  8. #1088
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    All those areas of marriage law were put in place for the sake of the biological family unit marriage sanctions and supports. Most of what you mentioned is DIVORCE law; a set of laws that had to be developed AFTER marriage laws were created and established to provide a remedy to those seeking to dissolve a marriage contract. The details of divorce law don't tell us what marriage was created for. They just tell us what we have agreed should be an appropriate remedy for dissolving a marriage.
    What does any of that have to do with the children besides child custody/support? Those laws work that way no matter the age of the children a couple might have. In fact, a wife has more say in what happens to her husband upon his death (sans will) than any of his children, including sons who are adults.

    You are making assumptions that you cannot legally back up.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #1089
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    No, but "man and woman" are. At least in 37 states at present. That was the point, but nice red herring there.
    And those are legal restrictions on entering into marriage, not marriage itself.

    Marriage is defined on how it functions, not who can enter into it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #1090
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And those are legal restrictions on entering into marriage, not marriage itself.

    Marriage is defined on how it functions, not who can enter into it.
    That's incorrect. Definition of marriage:

    mar·riage
    /ˈmarij/
    Noun
    1) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    2) A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •