We have so many old fools on USMB - let RBG's intelligence and wisdom be a lesson to them. This is how important and valuable your life could be, had you not wasted it watching Fox News.
She is an inspiration to all women and critical thinking people who question arguments based on "tradition" or popular beliefs.
Argument: The court does not have legal right to change a "millennia" of tradition.
RBG's response: "Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"
Argument: The institution of marriage is inherently linked to a couple's ability to procreate.
RBG's response: "Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don't have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children."
Argument: Gay marriage "impinges on the state" and takes benefits away from straight couples.
RBG's response: "How could that be, because all of the incentives, all of the benefits of marriage affords would still be available. So you're not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."
Argument: Legal gay marriage has never been a possibility for most of history. Why now?
RBG's response: "[Same-sex couples] wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn't possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn't egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn't—wouldn't fit into what marriage was once."
She is an inspiration to all women and critical thinking people who question arguments based on "tradition" or popular beliefs.
Argument: The court does not have legal right to change a "millennia" of tradition.
RBG's response: "Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"
Argument: The institution of marriage is inherently linked to a couple's ability to procreate.
RBG's response: "Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don't have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children."
Argument: Gay marriage "impinges on the state" and takes benefits away from straight couples.
RBG's response: "How could that be, because all of the incentives, all of the benefits of marriage affords would still be available. So you're not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."
Argument: Legal gay marriage has never been a possibility for most of history. Why now?
RBG's response: "[Same-sex couples] wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn't possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn't egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn't—wouldn't fit into what marriage was once."
... 
