OMG! Common Sense!

[Liberty Sanders]

Court Rules No Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

There's nothing common sense about this. The decision is a train wreck and can't stand.

 

[mrjarrell]

There's nothing common sense about this. The decision is a train wreck and can't stand.

Actually, the judge who wrote the dissenting opinion in the case cited Judge Posner's take on the earlier case. These judges used the same asinine arguments as Indiana and Wisconsin in their decision. I have little doubt that the SC will rule against them.

 

[Dead Duck]

What ever happened to the church marriage?
Didn't the government just get involved to make sure we weren't humping our cousins by doing some blood work?

Let's face it, it started with a commitment with each other and a contract with God. When did it become such a Government run industry?


Not trying to get into a philosophical war here, just curious on when and why the gov got into it in the first place. Cause I don't know.
(I spelled philosophical correctly)

 

[CZB1962]

Corollary: No constitutional right to marriage at all.

Get. Government. Out. Of. Marriage. Period

To do this would mean that every husband and wife would have to get several legal document drawn up by an attorney, at considerable cost, to give the same protection that state recognized marriage already grants. I don't know about you, but I don't want that.

To me we have two separate issues. Church recognized marriage and state recognized marriage.

I understand why some people would object to the former for religious reasons but the latter is just an implied contract between two people that the state recognizes.

To me the better answer is to get religion out of government. I seem to remember something from history class that makes me think the term "separation of church and state" had a significant role in our founding.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

To do this would mean that every husband and wife would have to get several legal document drawn up by an attorney, at considerable cost, to give the same protection that state recognized marriage already grants. I don't know about you, but I don't want that.

To me we have two separate issues. Church recognized marriage and state recognized marriage.

I understand why some people would object to the former for religious reasons but the latter is just an implied contract between two people that the state recognizes.

To me the better answer is to get religion out of government. I seem to remember something from history class that makes me think the term "separation of church and state" had a significant role in our founding.

You went to a public school, didn't you?

Here is the first amendment. That oft-mis-interpretation is associated with this amendment. Please tell me how what you wrote is contained in the text of this amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We really should start suing schools for malpractice.

 

[CZB1962]

You went to a public school, didn't you?

Here is the first amendment. That oft-mis-interpretation is associated with this amendment. Please tell me how what you wrote is contained in the text of this amendment.



We really should start suing schools for malpractice.

My point is that the only objection most people have to same sex marriage is religious in nature. This is government enforcing religious law and granting some people a certain status based on religious guidelines. To me it is no different than if we said we were not going to allow Jews or Muslims to marry because both would be based on religious views.

If you want to go strictly by the text of the 1st amendment, all a gay couple would have to do is say that it is part of their religion that they be allowed to marry and the 1st amendment would allow them to exercise that religious "right".

We could go back and forth all day and you can try to attack those who disagree with you (which will always win respect).

It amazes me how those who profess to want government out of their lives suddenly want laws that protect their way of thinking. If you truly want government out of your personal life then you have to afford that same privilege to all.

 

[mrjarrell]

What ever happened to the church marriage?
Didn't the government just get involved to make sure we weren't humping our cousins by doing some blood work?

Let's face it, it started with a commitment with each other and a contract with God. When did it become such a Government run industry?


Not trying to get into a philosophical war here, just curious on when and why the gov got into it in the first place. Cause I don't know.
(I spelled philosophical correctly)

Nope. Government got involved at the behest of the churches hundreds of years ago in Europe. It was a way of the churches consolidating their power over the people and their institutions. Marriage wasn't always a church thing. Quite often it was just two people and their families saying, "Yep, they're married now". The churches wanted in on that action and got the governments to recognise and create a monopoly for them, under their rules. The colonies adopted those self same rules (since the churches were all European). Rules against marrying cousins had nothing to do with it and are actually quite new, as cousins had been marrying very frequently in the near past to keep property within families. Government has been at this for ages and they aren't likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[bingley]

You want common sense? Mandatory divorce for everyone!!!

 

[Henry]

You want common sense? Mandatory divorce for everyone!!!

I am in favor of States divorcing themselves from the federal government!

 

[wolfman6]

I'm sure that there are many other things that the government should be worrying about. Who can and can't marry shouldn't be something that tax dollars are wasted on.

 

[1911ly]

I'm sure that there are many other things that the government should be worrying about. Who can and can't marry shouldn't be something that tax dollars are wasted on.

Well, not really so. With marriage seems to come special benefits. Social Security, pension benefits and so on. All kinds of things the government has it's finger in.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

While I think I understand the various arguments calling for "getting the State out of marriage," what are laws but the code of cultural mores? For those wishing to "get religion out of government", what are you going to do about "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Murder?" The Ten Commandments embodied in Judeo-Christian society upon which our laws were based was the basis for much of our current body of law. Shall we jettison it because it's "religious" in nature - as if such were inherently wrongful instead of time-tested rules for a society of fallible humans.

Societal mores are currently changing under a barrage of leftist propaganda, but I suspect the pendulum will swing back the other way presently, hopefully before we have a chance to test the morality of polyamory and polyandry, bestiality, and pederasty in our courts, testing the specious "logic" being used to justify overturning thousands of years of marriage being understood to be between men and women, rather than men/men/women/women.

 

[Dean C.]

While I think I understand the various arguments calling for "getting the State out of marriage," what are laws but the code of cultural mores? For those wishing to "get religion out of government", what are you going to do about "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Murder?" The Ten Commandments embodied in Judeo-Christian society upon which our laws were based was the basis for much of our current body of law. Shall we jettison it because it's "religious" in nature - as if such were inherently wrongful instead of time-tested rules for a society of fallible humans.

Societal mores are currently changing under a barrage of leftist propaganda, but I suspect the pendulum will swing back the other way presently, hopefully before we have a chance to test the morality of polyamory and polyandry, bestiality, and pederasty in our courts, testing the specious "logic" being used to justify overturning thousands of years of marriage being understood to be between men and women, rather than men/men/women/women.

Laws have changed and adapted as human morality has adapted and evolved over the years. And wasnt the bestiality argument raised when interracial marriage was made legal? No one group has ever had a monopoly on morality.

Code of Ur-Nammu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (just as a reference)

 

[ziggy]

It seems to me very few of you actually read about the Court's opinion or the reasoning it applied.
The state, i.e. the government, is involved in marriage because the state has an interest in marriage since marriage creates the structure within which children are cared for and have stability.
The Court did not say gay marriage is bad, good, or otherwise. It said the state has an interest in the institution of marriage and that the state can define the kinds of relationships that can legally be marriages. If a state, through its legislature, wants to OK gay marriage, that is fine. The opinion says courts should not substitute their opinion for those of the majority of a state's voters.
There are many common sense arguments mentioned as to why hetrosexual marriage is a stabilizing force in society. It did not say gay marriage cannot provide those things, it says courts should defer to the collective wisdom of the people, rather than the personal preferences of two judges.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Laws have changed and adapted as human morality has adapted and evolved over the years. And wasnt the bestiality argument raised when interracial marriage was made legal? No one group has ever had a monopoly on morality.

Code of Ur-Nammu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (just as a reference)

No society has ever survived which embraced homosexuality, either. Of course, since societies die and are succeeded by others, that may be a moot point. My other point is that those who advocate lifestyles outside the current cultural mores are already preparing to use the same arguments used by the LGTwhatevers to get their preferred lifestyles jumped into the mainstream. Sure they may be knocked back a time or three, but they've got all these wonderful twisted precedents to fall back upon now, so all they need do is continue to agitate and get Hollywood on their side and eventually, they too will be protected.

 

[Bennettjh]

 

[Tactically Fat]

Well, not really so. With marriage seems to come special benefits. Social Security, pension benefits and so on. All kinds of things the government has it's finger in.

My wife and I have known, in the past, a few different "widow/widower" couples that refused to get married due to the above. If they were to remarry, their benefits due them from their deceased spouse would cease. How crappy is that?

My solution would be to go ahead and have a religious ceremony if you wanted to get married. Be married in the eyes of your God - just "don't do it officially" so you can continue to afford your groceries every month.

What a mess this crap is.

EDIT: Also - when I say that I want Government out of the marriage business... It's to get it out of the business of marriage. Licenses and such. If two people want to get married...they should be allowed to. If a church denomination refuses to marry certain people - let them refuse. However - those government employees who are allowed to marry people (clerks, judges, etc etc) probably shouldn't be able to refuse. If a marriage agreement/covenant/contract is entered into willingly by all parties - then the Gov't should be compelled to recognize it until such a time that the agreement/covenant/contract is dissolved/broken.