CDZ Ruth Bader Ginsburg Proves That No Liberal Is Honest Or Trustworthy

[jwoodie]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread of the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The former is a matter of personal beliefs and customs, and is available to anyone. The latter is a government-created contract which was designed to benefit children through the maintenance of stable family units. As such, it's recognition is subject to specified requirements in the same way as are corporations and other legal entities. These requirements are determined in state legislatures and codified in various state laws. A common requirement for civil marriage is that you can't be married to more than one other person.

Most of the "benefits" associated with civil marriage were also designed to promote children's welfare. For example, the ability to file a joint tax return was predicated on one parent staying at home to care for children. Because two people of the same sex cannot have children, there was no need to extend these benefits to them.

However, social conditions have changed drastically over the past 50 years. Divorce is commonplace, as are children born out of wedlock. This has caused increasing envy and resentment towards the dwindling number of intact nuclear families, who are seen "privileged" to receive these benefits.

Perhaps it is time to do away with these benefits. Two-income families are the norm, and no-fault divorce has made civil marriage more of a tax avoidance scheme than long-term commitment. Are there any remaining reasons for the government to be involved in personal relationships?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread of the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The former is a matter of personal beliefs and customs, and is available to anyone. The latter is a government-created contract which was designed to benefit children through the maintenance of stable family units. As such, it's recognition is subject to specified requirements in the same way as are corporations and other legal entities. These requirements are determined in state legislatures and codified in various state laws. A common requirement for civil marriage is that you can't be married to more than one other person.

Most of the "benefits" associated with civil marriage were also designed to promote children's welfare. For example, the ability to file a joint tax return was predicated on one parent staying at home to care for children. Because two people of the same sex cannot have children, there was no need to extend these benefits to them.

However, social conditions have changed drastically over the past 50 years. Divorce is commonplace, as are children born out of wedlock. This has caused increasing envy and resentment towards the dwindling number of intact nuclear families, who are seen "privileged" to receive these benefits.

Perhaps it is time to do away with these benefits. Two-income families are the norm, and no-fault divorce has made civil marriage more of a tax avoidance scheme than long-term commitment. Are there any remaining reasons for the government to be involved in personal relationships?

Absolutely correct, a state marriage license provides NOTHING that couldn't be gained via a private contract between consenting adults.

 

[GaryDog]

Unlike conservatives, liberals absolutely do not care if the Supreme Court engages in political bias as long as that bias is also liberal.
That is, and always will be, the difference between non-extremest liberals and non-extremest conservatives. Conservatives want fairness, liberals want fascism.

lol that's not true, there are plenty of conservatives who are willing to ignore the COTUS in order to enact laws that they want enacted. Gay marriage springs immediately to mind. NOWHERE is the government empowered to define marriage in the COTUS.

Privileges and Immunities, dude. Google it.

What the fuck are you talking about? The government has ZERO authority to define marriage , period. Meaning they have no right, none to tell anyone they can't get married. If 40 midget men want to get married, that is their prerogative.

They have the ability to overturn restrictions by various states.

If you didn't know what "privileges and immunities" meant, you could've just said that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Unlike conservatives, liberals absolutely do not care if the Supreme Court engages in political bias as long as that bias is also liberal.
That is, and always will be, the difference between non-extremest liberals and non-extremest conservatives. Conservatives want fairness, liberals want fascism.

lol that's not true, there are plenty of conservatives who are willing to ignore the COTUS in order to enact laws that they want enacted. Gay marriage springs immediately to mind. NOWHERE is the government empowered to define marriage in the COTUS.

Privileges and Immunities, dude. Google it.

What the fuck are you talking about? The government has ZERO authority to define marriage , period. Meaning they have no right, none to tell anyone they can't get married. If 40 midget men want to get married, that is their prerogative.

They have the ability to overturn restrictions by various states.

If you didn't know what "privileges and immunities" meant, you could've just said that.

Oh i understand exactly what privileges and immunities are, but that has nothing to do with my correct statement that no one has a right to a state marriage license. The fact is, if a state just said "we are no longer issuing ANY marriage licenses" there is nothing SCOTUS could do about it. All they can do is ensure that government license or benefit that is available to anyone is available to everyone.

 

[GaryDog]

Unlike conservatives, liberals absolutely do not care if the Supreme Court engages in political bias as long as that bias is also liberal.
That is, and always will be, the difference between non-extremest liberals and non-extremest conservatives. Conservatives want fairness, liberals want fascism.

lol that's not true, there are plenty of conservatives who are willing to ignore the COTUS in order to enact laws that they want enacted. Gay marriage springs immediately to mind. NOWHERE is the government empowered to define marriage in the COTUS.

Privileges and Immunities, dude. Google it.

What the fuck are you talking about? The government has ZERO authority to define marriage , period. Meaning they have no right, none to tell anyone they can't get married. If 40 midget men want to get married, that is their prerogative.

They have the ability to overturn restrictions by various states.

If you didn't know what "privileges and immunities" meant, you could've just said that.

Oh i understand exactly what privileges and immunities are, but that has nothing to do with my correct statement that no one has a right to a state marriage license. The fact is, if a state just said "we are no longer issuing ANY marriage licenses" there is nothing SCOTUS could do about it. All they can do is ensure that government license or benefit that is available to anyone is available to everyone.

But that state would still have to respect the marital union of any marriage from another state, gay or straight.

Like I said, you simply don't know much. You know enough to be dangerous in your ignorance, but that's all.