Thread: traditional marriage

Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13

My response is the same one the author Kurt Vonnegut used whenever someone died in his book slaughterhouse five

"So it goes"

Which makes one wonder if there is any original or independent thought or conviction in there someplace. The point is that if we are to be a free people, we must be able to organize our societies and live our lives as WE choose and not as an authoritarian central government dictates. And if that means we get it wrong sometimes, well, then so it goes. The Founders were of a strong conviction that a people given liberty to choose and order their own destinies would get it a lot more right than they would get it wrong. They had no such faith in a self-serving government, however.

Originally Posted by Gardener

Anybody who wishes to get a traditional wedding should be allowed to do so, yes.

According to the most basic tenet of libertarianism, however, one person's right to swing their fist ends at another person's nose, so these poeple do not have the right to dictate to everybody else.

I prefer India Pale Ales. That does not mean I support outlaw porters or bocks.

Since we're talking about being legally married, and not just a church wedding or a private wedding, it isn't just a matter of being allowed to do something; it's about having the right to have the government sanction your marriage.

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

The Supreme Court has stated that Marriage is a constitutional right, thus its a constitutional right. That is how our system of government works in this country.

You NEVER disagree with the SCOTUS? Even SCOTUS justices disagree with the SCOTUS. Otherwise, all SCOTUS decisions would be unanimous.

BTW, are you sure they said that?

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl

Which makes one wonder if there is any original or independent thought or conviction in there someplace. The point is that if we are to be a free people, we must be able to organize our societies and live our lives as WE choose and not as an authoritarian central government dictates. And if that means we get it wrong sometimes, well, then so it goes. The Founders were of a strong conviction that a people given liberty to choose and order their own destinies would get it a lot more right than they would get it wrong. They had no such faith in a self-serving government, however.

Have we not used that freedom to decide upon which road this country shall travel?

Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13

Have we not used that freedom to decide upon which road this country shall travel?

Depends on what you mean by that. Authority was never given to the central government to decide that.

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl

Depends on what you mean by that. Authority was never given to the central government to decide that.

The people decided that at some point in our past.

Originally Posted by Moot

"The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.' " - google


Gays want the right to legally marry so they can enjoy the same government benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy (tax credits, inheritance, etc.) Having their marriage officiated by a pastor or clergy would still depend on religious freedom. The law can't force pastors to marry SS couples, but they do have to recognize legal SS marriage. At least that's how I understand it.

?


There are people who don't know that?

Please, gay marriage has been legal here since 1997

Thanks for your input

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

That's not the history in this country. And the history you cite applied to kings and nobility only, not the masses. Massachusetts was the first state to institute licensing for marriage, and it slowwwly expanded to other states from there.

In some states, common law is still recognized, requiring no licensing from the state.

As for how long the list is for extra-constitutional issues... It's a ridiculous question.

Once again a complete miss on all points.

Originally Posted by mpg

You NEVER disagree with the SCOTUS? Even SCOTUS justices disagree with the SCOTUS. Otherwise, all SCOTUS decisions would be unanimous.

BTW, are you sure they said that?

Our opinion on what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant. The only opinions that actually matter are those in the federal court system, and if it goes before SCOTUS, the opinion of the majority of justices. If the majority of justices ruled that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, then for all intents and purposes, that would be your constitutional right.

Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13

The people decided that at some point in our past.

Well they forgot to tell the government then.