re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]
Do you lament that people started marrying each other for love instead of the traditional function of uniting tribes and families or to acquire wealth?
You always had people who were marrying for love. It would be absurd to suggest it was only ever about financial or political considerations.
po·lyg·a·my
noun \-mē\
: the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time
Why are you being such a smart-ass? I have already said several times that the point is polygamy was not considered a marriage of all partners i.e. where both female partners would be married to each other, but a marriage of one partner with more than one partner. It was still legally between a man and a woman. The difference was that the man could also be legally married to another woman.
The position against gay marriage has been about hostility to gay people, and not at all about "tradition."
For thousands of years? Nonsense, it is just that male-female partnerships are the norm and a biological necessity, while male-male and female-female partnerships are an uncommon and unnecessary deviation from the norm.
This is demonstrated every time people don't talk about traditional marriage being under attack (or that government needs to step out of marriage) with every divorce or every quickie Vegas marriage.
Actually, the introduction of no-fault divorce was regarded with some controversy. Divorce was certainly not considered a very good thing a few decades ago. People have just become so accustomed to it that it is much less contentious.
And it's demonstrated every time they couldn't care less that polygamy and different functions of marriage were abandoned for more modern approaches. We're not stupid.
Polygamy was common, but not universal and it was not always legal. Again, history shows that it was not free of controversy both legal and social.
Yes, bit by bit the world moved on from slavery. So? This doesn't challenge my point. Humanity had some crappy practices, we abandoned them, yay team humanity. We're not forced to do something the same way forever just because we always have.
I am not saying we are forced to do something the same way forever. This is about changing something that has never fundamentally changed for thousands of years. Such changes occurring based on a novel reinterpretation of the law without regard for the societal perspective is the problem.
What if everybody is wrong and you're right, is that it? Unfortunately for your position, every time same sex marriage goes to court it wins because no argument against it can be upheld. You can only use the "activist judge" routine so many times before you have to consider the very real possibility that the case against ssm simply just sucks.
Most of these judges were appointed by Obama, most of the rest by Clinton. One was appointed by Bush, but from Tom Ridge's network and thus was more liberal, and another was appointed by Reagan but his ruling makes his political views blatantly obvious. Maybe it had something to do with his long-time friendship with a lesbian staffer or maybe he was just a representation of the more liberal attitude of Michigan Republicans. Regardless, it is fairly clear that these judges all have one thing in common: they support gay marriage personally.
Except that every time, bans on ssm are overturned citing the the 14th amendment.
Of course, because that's the only way they could possibly make the argument. If there were some other way they could make the argument seem plausible, they would use that as well or alternatively, in case they thought the 14th amendment argument were not plausible enough for some.
That's different, and isn't unique to same sex couples. Nobody can be legally required to recognize ssm, just as no law can legally force me to accept Jesus into my heart regardless of Christianity being legal in all fifty states.
Acceptance and recognition are not exactly the same. People would have to accept the change in the legal definition of marriage, even if they do not believe it is truly marriage.
Are you married? If so, what does the advent of ssm mean for your marriage? Does it mean less to you now?
Why do you keep making this argument? It has nothing to do with my point. Changing the meaning of marriage is invariably something that affects society as a whole. Various societal adjustments become necessary when the law of the land says this now constitutes a legal marriage. Whether it affects existing marriages is not important as it will affect society as a whole regardless. You undoubtedly think it would change society for the better, but since it is unprecedented in history what matters is that it is not a change forced on people without their consent.
Where did it say they weren't recognized under the law?
I'm not holding your hand.
You're extrapolating to absolutes where it isn't warranted. The point isn't that intent is irrelevant, the point is that intent isn't gospel.
Your own words betray you. If you really thought it were relevant, then you would not be using an ad-hominem fallacy to dismiss talk of intent.
You, on the other hand, are absolutely working from personal opinion and just hiding behind this "original intent" nonsense. Well, we don't have an original intent regarding same-sex marriage, or school segregation. We also don't have an original intent regarding nuclear weapons under the second amendment, or search and seizure in reference to electronic property.
You are making the mistake of presuming there should be explicit original intent regarding things that were not even conceivable in order for original intent to have value. Gay marriage was certainly conceivable at the time of the Constitution, they just never anticipated someone might actually try to force legal recognition with it because that was not in any way, shape, or form, the intent of the amendment. Other aspects of the Constitution were meant to apply to things like nuclear weapons and electronic property even if they did not exist at the time because they are merely evolutions of existing concepts. Those sorts of things are within their legitimate jurisdiction to interpret how the Constitution would apply and other matters that are ultimately dependent on changes in science and technology. Whether gay marriage should be legally recognized or not has nothing to do with science or technology at its core. No scientific or technological advancements would require any reconsideration about the application of the Constitution and its amendments regarding the question.