Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Demon of Light said:

The Orwellian aspect is that by declaring it unconstitutional based off an amendment that has existed for nearly 150 years they are, in effect, saying it was always unconstitutional for states to only extend legal recognition to traditional marriages. Given that the people who wrote the amendment sure as hell were not desiring or envisioning forcing recognition of gay marriage on the states, this is effectively rewriting the amendment to say something it never said and was never meant to say.

Click to expand...

So, the state's right to decide who we can marry is being oppressed? Oooh, I'm quivering.

You are asking the wrong question, especially since I have no problem with it being legal as this is about the means rather than the end result. How many ways could the Supreme Court "reinterpret" the constitution in an unprecedented fashion that would affect your life? If you endorse these decisions because they favor your political views, without considering whether a faithful application of the constitution truly merits the reinterpretation, then you should consider whether there are any ways the Supreme Court could act against your political views using the same sort of legal gymnastics.

Click to expand...

I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Taylor said:

No history and tradition of marriage between races prior to Loving?? The judge is either suprisingly uneducated, or thinks herself to be so powerful that she can make up history in addition to law.

Click to expand...

Interracial marriage bans were around, and were "traditional," the "will of God," the "will of the people," etc.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:

Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban

The key part:



Use of the term gender instead of orientation could be important for future rulings. Have not read the ruling itself yet so take the reporting for what it is worth.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's enlightening and in a way comforting that your thread has received so little attention/comment. It seems that as time goes on, these outcomes are less and less newsworthy or controversial - which is a good thing. DP may be different from the normal interaction/discussion people have in their daily lives, but I doubt it's too different.

For me, the issue has always been getting government out of the marriage business, not more entrenched in it. On that basis, wake me when efforts start taking place to restrict government's ability to discriminate based on marital status so that all individuals, married or not, can expect the same tax and benefit treatment from their government.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

CanadaJohn said:

Personally, I think it's enlightening and in a way comforting that your thread has received so little attention/comment. It seems that as time goes on, these outcomes are less and less newsworthy or controversial - which is a good thing. DP may be different from the normal interaction/discussion people have in their daily lives, but I doubt it's too different.

For me, the issue has always been getting government out of the marriage business, not more entrenched in it. On that basis, wake me when efforts start taking place to restrict government's ability to discriminate based on marital status so that all individuals, married or not, can expect the same tax and benefit treatment from their government.

Click to expand...

The thing is, government is not going to get out of the marriage business any time soon. It just is a nonstarter. It is important symbolically for couples, it is a huge benefit to society in promoting stability, it is simply a convenient way to bundle a bunch of legal stuff together in one easy package.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:

Except that is not the case here. Again, a little reading on your part would illuminate how this is very consistent with other equal protection claims.

Click to expand...

It is supposed to seem consistent, because that is how effective legal gymnastics works. Sort of like calling the individual mandate a tax or proclaiming corporations to be people with the same rights as individuals. The whole point is to provide a valid-sounding argument. Were these judges to just state outright "I support this policy and therefore I am making this ruling" then no one would could get all sanctimonious about "rights" and "the constitution" as it would be obvious the decision was political rather than legal in nature.

Deuce said:

So, the state's right to decide who we can marry is being oppressed? Oooh, I'm quivering.

Click to expand...

:roll: The reference is to the whole "we at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" bit in 1984. What is Orwellian is suddenly deciding that an amendment made to the constitution nearly 150 years ago has actually always meant that gay marriage must get legal recognition from the government.

I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.

Click to expand...

As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.

I could argue that the invocation of "intermediate scrutiny" on the basis of "gender discrimination" is completely unfounded and a perversion even of the original intent of the court rulings, or that even if one accepted the bizarre assertion that it still easily meets the standard. The problem is that when judges make political decisions, this effectively ends the discussion as the only way to undo their decision is to get another judge to overrule them and then act like that judge is more smarter than the other judges. It seems unlikely to happen in this case. When this gets up to the Supreme Court then the current partisan balance of power all but assures these decisions will be affirmed.

Unfortunately, all one has to do to get an idea of how these decisions will play out is to look at their political affiliations. That is not how it should be and diminishes the credibility of their rulings.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Demon of Light said:

It is supposed to seem consistent, because that is how effective legal gymnastics works. Sort of like calling the individual mandate a tax or proclaiming corporations to be people with the same rights as individuals. The whole point is to provide a valid-sounding argument. Were these judges to just state outright "I support this policy and therefore I am making this ruling" then no one would could get all sanctimonious about "rights" and "the constitution" as it would be obvious the decision was political rather than legal in nature.



:roll: The reference is to the whole "we at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia" bit in 1984. What is Orwellian is suddenly deciding that an amendment made to the constitution nearly 150 years ago has actually always meant that gay marriage must get legal recognition from the government.



As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.

I could argue that the invocation of "intermediate scrutiny" on the basis of "gender discrimination" is completely unfounded and a perversion even of the original intent of the court rulings, or that even if one accepted the bizarre assertion that it still easily meets the standard. The problem is that when judges make political decisions, this effectively ends the discussion as the only way to undo their decision is to get another judge to overrule them and then act like that judge is more smarter than the other judges. It seems unlikely to happen in this case. When this gets up to the Supreme Court then the current partisan balance of power all but assures these decisions will be affirmed.

Unfortunately, all one has to do to get an idea of how these decisions will play out is to look at their political affiliations. That is not how it should be and diminishes the credibility of their rulings.

Click to expand...

Aside from legal jargon and jive, the AG of Wisconsin knew he was in violation of the constitution, yet ruled against SS marriage, Gov. Walker did the same. The AG filed a frivolous lawsuit.
This has little to do with politics and more to do about what is legal and what is not. It also has more to do with people's rights too.

If Walker and the AG were attempting to make a political statement by banning same sex marriage, it was an epic failure on their part.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:

The thing is, government is not going to get out of the marriage business any time soon. It just is a nonstarter. It is important symbolically for couples, it is a huge benefit to society in promoting stability, it is simply a convenient way to bundle a bunch of legal stuff together in one easy package.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, part of the gay rights argument, as it relates to marriage, is that the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is outmoded and no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that's true. But then, if traditional marriage can be labelled as passe, why not all marriage? What could be more equal than treating each man and each woman equally, separately, irrespective of their marital status.

The time will come when courts are forced to accept all and varied concepts of marriage and as they do governments will see the wisdom of getting out of the marriage business. I'll be long dead, so I won't be able to say I told you so - but I'll be looking down (or up) and smiling when it happens.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

CanadaJohn said:

Well, to be fair, part of the gay rights argument, as it relates to marriage, is that the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is outmoded and no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that's true. But then, if traditional marriage can be labelled as passe, why not all marriage? What could be more equal than treating each man and each woman equally, separately, irrespective of their marital status.

The time will come when courts are forced to accept all and varied concepts of marriage and as they do governments will see the wisdom of getting out of the marriage business. I'll be long dead, so I won't be able to say I told you so - but I'll be looking down (or up) and smiling when it happens.

Click to expand...

I do not think the argument of most is that "traditional" marriage is passe, but that SSM can fit within that framework.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:

I do not think the argument of most is that "traditional" marriage is passe, but that SSM can fit within that framework.

Click to expand...

While this is obviously not a legal argument, I think it can safely be said that if the framework of my own marriage is unchanged by the recognition of same sex marriage, then marriage has not actually been changed.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Cardinal said:

While this is obviously not a legal argument, I think it can safely be said that if the framework of my own marriage is unchanged by the recognition of same sex marriage, then marriage has not actually been changed.

Click to expand...

exactly thats why i never took that and the failed argument of force seriously.

there no logic to support it.

is your marriage still don't the same way? yes
do people who want your type of marriage free to get one? yes

no change no force then

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:

I do not think the argument of most is that "traditional" marriage is passe, but that SSM can fit within that framework.

Click to expand...

Well, it's clearly passe in that 50% of first marriages end in divorce and second and later marriages stick even less. There's no particular reason for society to push marriage in the ways it has in the past considering that many children are raised just fine in a wide variety of family units and for that matter a male and a female is no longer an absolute need for children in the first place.

Marriage is passe because more and more young people are abandoning it as an institution that must be respected.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

CanadaJohn said:

Well, it's clearly passe in that 50% of first marriages end in divorce and second and later marriages stick even less. There's no particular reason for society to push marriage in the ways it has in the past considering that many children are raised just fine in a wide variety of family units and for that matter a male and a female is no longer an absolute need for children in the first place.

Marriage is passe because more and more young people are abandoning it as an institution that must be respected.

Click to expand...

I would counter by asking what percentage of nonmarried relationships end in some form of permanent separation? I suspect it is somewhat higher, in which case marriage does serve a very useful purpose. It is not a cure-all, it is not perfect, but I do think it serves a good purpose in society, and for the individuals involved.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Redress said:

I would counter by asking what percentage of nonmarried relationships end in some form of permanent separation? I suspect it is somewhat higher, in which case marriage does serve a very useful purpose. It is not a cure-all, it is not perfect, but I do think it serves a good purpose in society, and for the individuals involved.

Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to marriage - I'm opposed to the government's involvement in marriage and it's policy of social engineering through marriage. Too many people, in my view, enter into marriage for lots of wrong reasons - and in fact, some people, particularly the elderly, don't enter into marriage, because of the government's involvement in benefits and penalties related to marriage.

I'm all for individuals entering into whatever relationship contract they care to create with legal language for dissolving the union as well. No need for government's heavy hand in that relationship.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Cardinal said:

While this is obviously not a legal argument, I think it can safely be said that if the framework of my own marriage is unchanged by the recognition of same sex marriage, then marriage has not actually been changed.

Click to expand...

Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence. It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage. This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years. Arguing that a legal document written 150 years ago actually requires a significant change in the millennia-old meaning of marriage is dishonest and rooted in partisan belief rather than sound legal theory. Changes of such a fundamental nature to such a central institution should be based on the approval of society, rather than the whims of activists in robes. Many states have approved it and many countries have approved it. One can safely say that it is only a matter of time before every state approves it through the legislature or a referendum. I consider that a good thing. Hijacking the constitution for one's political agenda is not something I consider good, however.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Demon of Light said:

1.)Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence.
2.)It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage.
3.) This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years.
4.) Arguing that a legal document written 150 years ago actually requires a significant change in the millennia-old meaning of marriage is dishonest and rooted in partisan belief rather than sound legal theory.
5.) Changes of such a fundamental nature to such a central institution should be based on the approval of society
6.), rather than the whims of activists in robes.
7.) Many states have approved it and many countries have approved it.
8.) One can safely say that it is only a matter of time before every state approves it through the legislature or a referendum. I consider that a good thing.
9.) Hijacking the constitution for one's political agenda is not something I consider good, however.

Click to expand...

1.) factually false and even if this lie was true its would be meanignless to equal rights a legal marriage. meaningless
2.) no it would be logical, accurate and honest as already shown.
3.) see one, again this fallacy is meanignless
4.) accept all the legal theory disagrees with you just like the other equal rights and civil rights issues. These types of same intellectually dishonest and mentally inept "arguments" were used against slavery, minority rights, womans rights and interracial marriage. They all failed because they had no logic to support them and people deemed them retarded just like now.
5.) wrong again society doesnt get to take individual rights away, see the examples in 4.
6.) this failed and tried inane dishonest argument as never worked. Claiming "activists judges" is the second fastest way to not be taken seriously on this subject by anybody educated and honest. The only other faster and more mentally inapt way is to try and relate hetero/homosexuality with besitalty and child rape.
7.) its not a state issue this is way the fed is fixing it.
8.) dont know where you get this from since thats not the case and again STATE legislature or a referendum has no business on and issue like this. The states over stepped thier power and they are being corrected.
9.) me neither, good thing equal rights isnt doing that.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:

Interracial marriage bans were around, and were "traditional," the "will of God," the "will of the people," etc.

Click to expand...

I don't see what this has to do with the obvious untruth that there was no history or tradition of interracial marriage before Loving.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Demon of Light said:

Marriage has been considered to be between a man and woman since it came into existence.

Click to expand...

Well, that's just incorrect on several levels. First, you can't know how frequently marriage has happened for same sex couples throughout history. 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, and third, your use of the singular makes your statement fall apart right at the outset due to polygamous marriages.

It may not affect a specific marriage, but it would be deceitful to claim expanding it to include relationships outside the traditional bounds of the institution is not changing marriage.

Click to expand...

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.

This is about changing the fundamental accepted meaning of something that has been in existence for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

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.

Arguing that a legal document written 150 years ago actually requires a significant change in the millennia-old meaning of marriage is dishonest and rooted in partisan belief rather than sound legal theory.

Click to expand...

I'm not, and in fact I don't think anybody is arguing for an amendment to the constitution as it's not necessary. Also, unless you're referring to a different document, the constitution was written in 1787 making it a wee bit older than 150 years.

Changes of such a fundamental nature to such a central institution should be based on the approval of society, rather than the whims of activists in robes.

Click to expand...

Well, it's funny you say that, because Supreme Court rulings do tend to reflect changing social mores, actually. 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.

Many states have approved it and many countries have approved it. One can safely say that it is only a matter of time before every state approves it through the legislature or a referendum. I consider that a good thing. Hijacking the constitution for one's political agenda is not something I consider good, however.

Click to expand...

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.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Hicup said:

I don't see how gender is anymore or less important than designating the ruling based on orientation. The rulings all seem to come down to equal protection on a very minimal rational basis test. I have argued that legislation passed by states legislatures is by definition meeting the due process clause, and rational basis, as our representatives have carefully considered the legislation of banning gay marriage, and if that isn't at least meeting rational basis, I'm not sure what is? The problem, (I think) eventually will come down to whether the rationale to exclude gays in marriage (mostly the preservation of and or higher regard for heterosexual familial contributions to the state over that of gay marriage familial contributions) is rational. A great many do not, I however do think that children do best with both a biological mother and father, and both gender representations is important in ways we may not even know. I've heard the arguments against this notion, such as, single parents, broken homes, bad parents etc.. And I acknowledge that those are valid concerns, but rather than use it as a whipping boy against the virtue of perfect parents in perfect worlds (Which we do not live in and never will) I, on the other hand think that we simply need to move in directions that help strengthen families, and provide a more equal and fair system for divorcing parents allowing access to both equally as the presumption. Add in several other tweaks to marriage and domestic laws and I think we can accommodate all parties concerned.

Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Exactly what legitimate state interest is served by denying marriage to same-sex couples?

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

CanadaJohn said:

Well, to be fair, part of the gay rights argument, as it relates to marriage, is that the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is outmoded and no longer relevant in today's society. I believe that's true. But then, if traditional marriage can be labelled as passe, why not all marriage? What could be more equal than treating each man and each woman equally, separately, irrespective of their marital status.

The time will come when courts are forced to accept all and varied concepts of marriage and as they do governments will see the wisdom of getting out of the marriage business. I'll be long dead, so I won't be able to say I told you so - but I'll be looking down (or up) and smiling when it happens.

Click to expand...

I think the advent of homosexual marriage is the beginning of the end of marriage as an important societal institution. I, too, think it won't be in my lifetime but the institution of marriage is disintegrating and being reformed as a cohabitational agreement between any two (maybe more?) people. Maybe that's how society is evolving and maybe that's what's needed but it's very strange to me.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:

I think the advent of homosexual marriage is the beginning of the end of marriage as an important societal institution. I, too, think it won't be in my lifetime but the institution of marriage is disintegrating and being reformed as a cohabitational agreement between any two (maybe more?) people. Maybe that's how society is evolving and maybe that's what's needed but it's very strange to me.

Click to expand...

Quickie Vegas marriages are infinitely more perverse to the symbolic importance of marriage than two duded getting married. Surely even you can agree that people who just met and get hitched in under a day make a far greater mockery of the lifelong vows they claim to be making. Focusing your displeasure on people who actually love each other and really do intend to spend their lives with each other is misplaced priorities at the least.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Cardinal said:

Quickie Vegas marriages are infinitely more perverse to the symbolic importance of marriage than two duded getting married. Surely even you can agree that people who just met and get hitched in under a day make a far greater mockery of the lifelong vows they claim to be making. Focusing your displeasure on people who actually love each other and really do intend to spend their lives with each other is misplaced priorities at the least.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of the changes we've seen in society have made a mockery of marriage and the quickie Vegas marriages are just one thing, but even that isn't as much of a mockery as two guys getting married. This was something inconceivable to most of the world until about a dozen years ago. Most of the world still considers homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron and I think they probably will for the foreseeable future. But the concept of marriage has changed over time. It was virtually always one man and one woman, but love wasn't necessarily part of the deal until fairly recently. And only that makes the idea of homosexual marriage remotely rational because now with "love" being the focus of marriage, the argument that homosexuals love each other and, therefore, should be married makes sense in a way that it wouldn't have when it was a man and woman getting married based on parental direction or societal mores. Back when you had to purchase your bride from the family or when marriages were arranged, love wasn't the focus. Marriage has always been about creating a biological pairing.... clear up until recent years.

So maybe it's time for society to adjust the laws of marriage to the newer and more updated perspectives; to keep up with the times, so to speak. But I think it's still very strange to have been born in a time when marriage was the most inviolate and unchanging of all human institutions as the joining of a man and a woman into something so odd as the joining of any two people that profess sexual desire for each other whether it makes biological sense or not.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:

I think a lot of the changes we've seen in society have made a mockery of marriage and the quickie Vegas marriages are just one thing, but even that isn't as much of a mockery as two guys getting married. This was something inconceivable to most of the world until about a dozen years ago. Most of the world still considers homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron and I think they probably will for the foreseeable future. But the concept of marriage has changed over time. It was virtually always one man and one woman, but love wasn't necessarily part of the deal until fairly recently. And only that makes the idea of homosexual marriage remotely rational because now with "love" being the focus of marriage, the argument that homosexuals love each other and, therefore, should be married makes sense in a way that it wouldn't have when it was a man and woman getting married based on parental direction or societal mores. Back when you had to purchase your bride from the family or when marriages were arranged, love wasn't the focus. Marriage has always been about creating a biological pairing.... clear up until recent years.

So maybe it's time for society to adjust the laws of marriage to the newer and more updated perspectives; to keep up with the times, so to speak. But I think it's still very strange to have been born in a time when marriage was the most inviolate and unchanging of all human institutions as the joining of a man and a woman into something so odd as the joining of any two people that profess sexual desire for each other whether it makes biological sense or not.

Click to expand...

This is a very confusing post, since you go on at some length on how the function marriage changed to recognize love as the primary motivation in marriage, as well as in how we've changed from arranged (and purchased) marriages, only in the next breath to call marriage "inviolate and unchanging." Was this contradiction intentional?

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Cardinal said:

This is a very confusing post, since you go on at some length on how the function marriage changed to recognize love as the primary motivation in marriage, as well as in how we've changed from arranged (and purchased) marriages, only in the next breath to call marriage "inviolate and unchanging." Was this contradiction intentional?

Click to expand...

Yes. These things were always unchanging.... until they changed. I'm of two minds on this with one mind agreeing that marriage must keep up with "the people" as an institution of "the people" and another mind confused about the new memes that are utterly at odds with what seemed to be the primary building block of society in a solid and "unchanging" formation. But the state of marriage actually did change. Maybe not so fundamentally as the basic structure of man and woman becoming something else, but the purpose and perspective of it certainly changed over time. So we do face some philosophical contradictions that something so basic and unchanging from our perspective, has and does, in fact, change. I think it is safe to say that no generation has seen such a sudden and drastic change as the one we're seeing, but the shifting of what marriage was, in essence, has been a slow and pretty constant thing over the course of history. Maybe it's that the change was so slow that it seemed like the moon would seem; rooted and locked in place even though it is constantly moving.

My take on marriage is that it is a creation of the state in the form of a sanctioned entity and is, therefore, the domain of the state to establish definition and conditions. I am not against homosexual marriage per se as long as the state decrees that "the people" desire to establish and sanction it. I am against federal decree to all the states regarding it. As long as each state works out it's own needs in establishment of marriage it's all fair and good.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:

Yes. These things were always unchanging.... until they changed.

Click to expand...

Uh, that's like saying that I will always sit on this couch...until I don't. Or that I was always sitting on this couch before I wasn't. All you're pointing out is that change happens.

Papa bull said:

I'm of two minds on this with one mind agreeing that marriage must keep up with "the people" as an institution of "the people" and another mind confused about the new memes that are utterly at odds with what seemed to be the primary building block of society in a solid and "unchanging" formation. But the state of marriage actually did change. Maybe not so fundamentally as the basic structure of man and woman becoming something else, but the purpose and perspective of it certainly changed over time. So we do face some philosophical contradictions that something so basic and unchanging from our perspective, has and does, in fact, change. I think it is safe to say that no generation has seen such a sudden and drastic change as the one we're seeing, but the shifting of what marriage was, in essence, has been a slow and pretty constant thing over the course of history. Maybe it's that the change was so slow that it seemed like the moon would seem; rooted and locked in place even though it is constantly moving.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I think what's most important that as the world is changes is what is most important to you? The values you choose to live by, or how you adapt to a changing world, are ultimately more important.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Cardinal said:

Uh, that's like saying that I will always sit on this couch...until I don't. Or that I was always sitting on this couch before I wasn't. All you're pointing out is that change happens.

Click to expand...

even though it was slow enough to be imperceptible except in retrospect.

Perhaps. I think what's most important that as the world is changes is what is most important to you? The values you choose to live by, or how you adapt to a changing world, are ultimately more important.

Click to expand...

More important..... than what?