Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 116

Thread: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

  1. #101
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    And the reason those arguments failed was because race was a suspect class for discrimination and because aside from race, interracial marriages were just like any other (e.g. one man and one woman joined together in marriage). Homosexual marriage is something quite different, but we'll see how it works out.
    There is nothing legally more different for two men or two women to get married as compared to a man and a woman than there is between two people of the same race getting married as compared to two people of different races getting married. Legal marriage is about establishing a legal kinship. There is nothing that a male spouse can do better for a female spouse than a female spouse can do for a female spouse, not that is required by law. And there is nothing that a female spouse can do better or at all for a male spouse than a male spouse could do for that male spouse, again, not that is required by laws.
    "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. #102
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    There is nothing legally more different for two men or two women to get married as compared to a man and a woman than there is between two people of the same race getting married as compared to two people of different races getting married. Legal marriage is about establishing a legal kinship. There is nothing that a male spouse can do better for a female spouse than a female spouse can do for a female spouse, not that is required by law. And there is nothing that a female spouse can do better or at all for a male spouse than a male spouse could do for that male spouse, again, not that is required by laws.
    Marriage, from the government's perspective, is about money.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    But some restrictions are still ok, like underage, incest, plural, and multiple marriages, right?
    I don't agree with polygamy being illegal and for it to be legalized would be more of an admin issue (paperwork) more than anything else. The other restrictions are already there due to concent laws and psycological harm (incest). Multiple marriage would run most likely in contract violations since that is what marriage is.

  4. #104
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Marriage, from the government's perspective, is about money.
    No, it isn't. It's about establishing a legal family relationship. The government benefits (at least a little) from marriage, as do most married couples, but legal marriage is about establishing that legal relationship status of "spouse".
    "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. #105
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I don't agree with polygamy being illegal and for it to be legalized would be more of an admin issue (paperwork) more than anything else. The other restrictions are already there due to concent laws and psycological harm (incest). Multiple marriage would run most likely in contract violations since that is what marriage is.
    The state has shown they have interest in regulating marriage, from the government's angle as the third party to the contract. As their "interest" continues to erode, I expect the rest of the restrictions to be dropped as well. While normal consent laws would cover intra-age marriage(lol), I doubt they would have standing to block two adult gay brothers from getting married.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    The state has shown they have interest in regulating marriage, from the government's angle as the third party to the contract. As their "interest" continues to erode, I expect the rest of the restrictions to be dropped as well. While normal consent laws would cover intra-age marriage(lol), I doubt they would have standing to block two adult gay brothers from getting married.
    And they may not, but that isn't here nor there at this time. What is here is there is no reason for two gay people to not be allowed to marry. We don't base laws on "what-if" games from whacky slippery slope people that are essentially throwing a temper tantrum that they can't get their way to ban two gay people from marrying.

    And marriage has been "eroding" for decades due to STRAIGHT people and divorces.

  7. #107
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it isn't. It's about establishing a legal family relationship. The government benefits (at least a little) from marriage, as do most married couples, but legal marriage is about establishing that legal relationship status of "spouse".
    Its about forming a legal contract with the state, which has nothing to do with marriage. The state requires a fee to create that contract, and a fee to dissolve it as well.

  8. #108
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    And they may not, but that isn't here nor there at this time. What is here is there is no reason for two gay people to not be allowed to marry. We don't base laws on "what-if" games from whacky slippery slope people that are essentially throwing a temper tantrum that they can't get their way to ban two gay people from marrying.

    And marriage has been "eroding" for decades due to STRAIGHT people and divorces.
    I didn't say marriage has been eroding. The state's list of "interests" in regulating marriage have been eroding, and they will eventually have no legal standing to regulate it.

  9. #109
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Its about forming a legal contract with the state, which has nothing to do with marriage. The state requires a fee to create that contract, and a fee to dissolve it as well.
    No. It's about state recognition of the legal relationship of spouse. That is the only thing that marriage does for absolutely everything. The state requires a fee to get a new birth certificate as well. That has to do with paperwork and the taking care of the costs that government incurs from filing and keeping track of your paperwork. Most divorce proceedings involve a judge and some state employees, which cost money. There is going to be paperwork, which costs money. There is going to be some checks that have to be made on the validity of the marriage, assets within the marriage, etc., which cost money. That is why it costs a fee. These fees have absolutely nothing to do with the actual marriage, the actual relationship.
    "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. #110
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

    Re: Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Again, the reason it is false is because you added "of the same race".
    I did not add that, I was disagreeing with another poster who did.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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