Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

Duke wrote: And, the *next* $64,000 question: Assuming all parties are consenting adults, why are we limiting marriages to 2 people?

This is about the long standing contract between two people. Not 3 or more.

Could be brought up, sure. But I don't see how the 14th could be used. Marriage is limited two two equally to all.

The government is not a third party, the government is us. It is not "they" who are denying and approving anything. You may argue that the government doesn't really represent us for blah blah reasons, but that's the construct.

Hence, we create the laws as everyone in the society has an interest in how everyone treats everyone else. Some states require that you have a blood test before marriage to make sure you don't have venereal disease or measles or some genetic disorders. The idea is that at least your spouse should know about the first, and the others both of you should know about before you have babies. The VD thing is a bit archaic now, because chances are both are infected before they get married, whereas previously virginity might have been assumed.

Besides "illegal" marriages, like below the age of consent, favorite donkey, etc., there probably isn't a need for licensing any more.

Honestly, the institution of marriage as a legal construct has been so degraded by easy divorce and cohabitation that it is almost meaningless, except for the spousal rights in estate and law. Maybe that's the issue-- we need to remove marriage from the law completely and start over. Instead of marrying someone, you just agree to the things you want to agree to-- yes, I give you the power to make medical decisions if I'm incapacitated, no, you can't have an interest in half my property, yes, I agree to help to financially support any children, etc. This would be a Civil Union, which was a previously suggested as an alternative for gays. Maybe it isn't such a bad idea that people see lawyers and negotiate all this stuff before they get "unioned" so they will have less to fight about later when they get "ununioned."

If you believe that there is still such a thing as a spiritual bond between two people that needs to be recognized and pledged, then you get that by going to the church of your choice and getting married.

This!!

Duke said: You should file a certificate of marriage just like you file a deed for property - Here, I did this, put it in the official record.

This is what I'm saying. And the contract can say whatever the couple wants. Medical power, inheritance, the works. It can be as limiting or as open as wanted, as simple as a we are married in the old fashion way, and as complicated as we are living together for 5 years with options to renew and this is what happens at the end of 5 years if there is no renewal.

Basil Exposition wrote: The government is not a third party, the government is us. It is not "they" who are denying and approving anything.

Good joke.

I do get your point. A little digging shows most marriage laws were enacted in the 1700s when the states were formed. It's taken 200+ years for a small group of citizens to get things changed. How is that a good thing. How is this a "free" country.

Yay for equality! It's been an utterly ridiculous fight that was clearly destined to end up here from the outset. Too bad so much of our national attention and energy has had to go toward "marriage rights" when there are about a zillion other things that need fixing.

My pet peeve with the whole "defense of marriage" types is that they've done such a E36 M3 job on the institution of marriage already. Over the past 30 years or so nearly every state has gone to a "no fault" law regulating divorce meaning your marriage contract is actually worth less that the paper it's printed on. Quiting a marriage is so easy more than half of first unions end in divorce and with each subsequent trip down the aisle the odds get even worse.

The high points have pretty well been covered; let me say I'm quite happy that common sense finally prevailed. I know a few gay couples, they honestly have made a better go of their relationships than I did mine. I don't think the .gov should be in the business of deciding who can and can't get married.

There's been a few people beating on the dissent by Roberts, but the man has a point which has nothing to do with the right or wrong of gay marriage. He pointed out that it appears five lawyers can now make decisions formerly saved for legislation. That may have some unintended consequences down the line.

alfadriver wrote:

Duke wrote: And, the *next* $64,000 question: Assuming all parties are consenting adults, why are we limiting marriages to 2 people?

This is about the long standing contract between two people. Not 3 or more. Could be brought up, sure. But I don't see how the 14th could be used. Marriage is limited two two equally to all.

But... WHY?

In reply to Duke:

Dunno, but it's a very different question than this one.

Duke wrote: And, the *next* $64,000 question: Assuming all parties are consenting adults, why are we limiting marriages to 2 people?

Because for many people, one wife is too many to start with.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Duke: Dunno, but it's a very different question than this one.

How?
This is not an adequate defense of your assertion.

Sounds a lot like an anti gay marriage response. "I dunno, I just don't think it's right"

Adrift wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Duke: Dunno, but it's a very different question than this one.

How? This is not an adequate defense of your assertion. Sounds a lot like an anti gay marriage response. "I dunno, I just don't think it's right"

As far as I can tell, Duke asked why polygamy is not legal- that I don't know. What more do you want?

It's not related to gay marriage in that someone who wants to enter into polygamy can't use the 14th amendment that the law is unequally applied to them. The law for two in a marriage applies to everyone, equally (now, finally). So one can not claim harm that the unequal application of the law harms them.

All people being equal means that two people can get married no matter what race they are or religion or if they enter the marriage as the same gender. It's still two people.

Here's one thing that today's ruling really did- it took who one was totally out of marriage what so ever.

any race, any gender- just two people.

You don't even need to be homosexual to marry your own gender.

Polygamy: If you ignore the religious and personal issues (as you should), it's about rights gained by marriage. Is it appropriate / reasonable that more then one person should have those rights / privilages? I am not sure if there are any that cost the government any money, if not, I am not sure there is any reason why not. Unless you are worried George Clooney will have all the good ones!

As I have mentioned previously, should you be able to marry your dog, your sister or you couch? (an argument that is common brought up) Realistically you should, but practically, there would be no rights gained, so there would be no reason / purpose to it so it should be denied since it is unecessary.

I found this illustration pretty interesting: It has a kind of "blowing up in your own face" kind of thing going on.

It seems to be very much a tipping point kind of thing. You have to wonder if the effort to stop GM actually hastened it approval by bringing it to the attention to a large percentage of people who just don't care (thus don't support restricting it). I have to say I was terribly surprised, and greatly disappointed when California actually banned it (not what most would think would happen).

Toyman01 wrote: I agree they should recognize it, but license it? Why. Why should we ask if we can get married to a person or even persons.

Because that is minimal effort to register your personal commitment to the State to certify the privileges, protections, and responsibilities for recognizing your union. You do not have to be licensed. You can get married by a religious official out in the woods and live off the grid. But if you die, the state won't recognize your spouse as your next of kin if you never bothered to let them know officially.

Know any single parents? Should they get double tax advantage for doing twice the work?

They get tax credit for the children. Are they single because they never married? The other party is potentially liable for child support. Sing parent because widowed? Potentially received life insurance. Too low income for really either of those? Probably eligible for some other assistance program.

Know any unwed couples that live together with children? I do. Why should I have an advantage over them.

They have equal access and opportunity to take advantage of it that you have. They have merely chosen not to. Probably have decided that the responsibilities and obligations outweigh the privileges and protections granted in their situation. That is their choice.

Are we forcing couples that shouldn't be married, to get married for the tax advantages?

If they want the privileges and protections, we are expecting them to take on the responsibilities and obligations. No one is forcing them to get married against their will or judgment. The State has decided that incentivizing the institution of marriage is in the interest of promoting the general welfare.

This is the same concept as giving a tax credit to a first time home buyer. Owning property encourages social stability and tends to make people more inclined to care about their community. Marriage is the same way.

Are we forcing couples that shouldn't be married, to get married for the tax advantages?

I think this is a great example of the common conflating of legal marriage and religious marriage.

People tend to make a lot of assumptions (usually sexual / emotional) about marriage that simply don't exist legally.

(no insult intended to the OP)

aircooled wrote: I found this illustration pretty interesting: It has a kind of "blowing up in your own face" kind of thing going on. It seems to be very much a tipping point kind of thing. You have to wonder if the effort to stop GM actually hastened it approval by bringing it to the attention to a large percentage of people who just don't care (thus don't support restricting it). I have to say I was terribly surprised, and greatly disappointed when California actually banned it (not what most would think would happen).

Activist judges was a big part.

For the constitutional bans or allowing it?

Seems like it goes both ways to me.

Fletch1 wrote: Activist judges was a big part.

In what way?

Judges are supposed to judge of the legality of laws, too. If a law if unconstitutional, then it has to go. This is a good example of that. That's more like activist legislation. Or the majority limiting the rights of the minority. Neither of those are good.

OK, thinking about it, I think most of that restrictions where voted in, then some overruled by judges (as in CA). Since the judges ended up being aligned with the SC, wouldn't that make the voters the "activists".

In reply to alfadriver:

What about the minority limiting the rights of the majority? Nationwide, just over 3.3 million individuals voted for same-sex marriage in three states—Maine, Maryland and Washington State—compared to more than 41 million who voted for marriage protection amendments or bans on same-sex marriage in 31 states—a ratio of more than 12 to 1.

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: What about the minority limiting the rights of the majority?

What rights of the majority are being harmed?

In reply to alfadriver:

Exactly. Other than being a little butt hurt that other people are living their lives in a manner inconsistent with their own beliefs.

In reply to alfadriver:

Have you not heard of florist and bakers being fined for not going against their conscience and beliefs?

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Have you not heard of florist and bakers being fined for not going against their conscience and beliefs?

I've heard rumors, but I have not directly seen any actual fines. More conjecture and fear than real things.

But that has resulted in a rash of religious freedom laws. Which I think are stupid. The goal was to make sure that people can refuse to service LBGT marriages and not get in trouble, but few seem to see that it can also apply to any religion denying any service to any other religion for no reason. You not Muslim? Then you can not partake in getting our food. Don't believe in Jesus? No flowers for you. You kill cows? Yea, no service.

That's going to go over well.