For a little over a decade. Obviously, that is not an argument for it being an old or traditional concept.Second, we know that's demonstrably untrue because marriage has in fact been considered to be between people of the same gender for some years now
Even polygamous marriages were generally taken as between man and woman, just there were other women who had the same relationship with the man.third, your use of the singular makes your statement fall apart right at the outset due to polygamous marriages.
I did not say it would change any individual person's marriage, but it does change marriage generally as it moves marriage away from its traditional orientation as between a man and woman. Allowing mixed-race marriages does not change marriage because it was still man and woman and it was hardly as though there was no historical precedent for it. Marriage between people of different races was commonplace in many parts of the world for pretty much as long as marriage has existed. One cannot say the same for same-sex marriage.Same sex marriage won't change my marriage anymore than allowing couples of mixed races to marry ended up changing the marriages of couples of the same race.
I do not think not recognizing gay marriages under the law is akin to allowing slavery or human sacrifice, but then I'm not a partisan. Still, the last point is kind of what I am getting at. This is not reviewing it as a race, but getting some activists to appeal it to some partisan judges and thus forcing the rest of society to go along with their dictates.Even accepting that that meaning has been influid over thousands of years (and believe me, I'm not), change happens. And thank god, too, because humanity has had a lot of practices that needed to go, such as slavery and human sacrifice to name just a couple. It's good that we can as a race eventually review practices and beliefs we've steadfastly held for so long and determined they no longer fit in the modern world.
Natch, why bother when you can just get judges to make **** up and achieve the same result? All that talk of "we as a race" reviewing this matter? Pish posh, just let some clearly "impartial" judges decide for us. They do have degrees and are much, much smarter than us after all.I'm not, and in fact I don't think anybody is arguing for an amendment to the constitution as it's not necessary.
I figured someone would ignorantly try and be a smart ass about "150 years", when my reference is, of course, to the 14th Amendment that serves as the basis for the equal protection claims. The Bill of Rights and original form of the Constitution are not the basis of these legal rulings.Also, unless you're referring to a different document, the constitution was written in 1787 making it a wee bit older than 150 years.
What are the social mores in Utah?Well, it's funny you say that, because Supreme Court rulings do tend to reflect changing social mores, actually.
Yes, but this is not one of those cases. There is no "tyranny" involved here or any "rights" in danger. People do not have a right to government handouts or a right to legal recognition of their relationship status. Any actual rights that come with legal marriage can be exercised without it. People can designate beneficiaries, share property, and share custody of children, without needing a marriage contract.That being said, tyranny of the majority is one of the reasons why we have a constitution, so as to prevent the masses from restricting the rights of the minority without due cause.
Uh, what? Who said anything about people getting married for a political agenda? I am talking about the various groups and individuals using the courts to force legal recognition of gay marriage on the rest of society.While there is no doubt that at least a few same sex couples are getting married as an expression of a political agenda, most people just want to get married for the same reasons you and I want to.