Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[candycorn]

I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.

I was unaware that was what I said.

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits.

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

 

[candycorn]

I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.

I was unaware that was what I said.

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits.

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.

In Texas you can get married by telling people you are. This entitles you to all spousal benefits in that state. In California you need to get permission from the state, and it refuses to admit that common law marriages from other states are legal.

What's your point?

There are no marriage licenses issued in Texas?

 

[Avatar4321]

I was unaware that was what I said.

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits.

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it simply because you wanted it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I go by the Constitution, you don't. But then I believe in what it says and you only believe it's a tool to be manipulated. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to your endless pronouncements that people's opinions don't matter. Actually they do. Even if they are wrong. If you believe opinions don't matter, your presence on a message board is certainly contradictory with that.

I believe in it to the bone, kaz, in ALL of it.

Then why ignore the 9th and 10th amendment?

Who is ignoring it? You don't understand their relationship to the 14th Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it siply because you wanted it.

Your faithful advocacy, no matter how sincere, is sincerely wrong.

 

[candycorn]

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it siply because you wanted it.

And blacks used to be subservient to whites due to skin color. I'm sure there was some idiot like yourself saying that "it was defined" and I am just a messenger of that "truth".

There are court decisions that are going through the process. In 2004, the rate of states recognizing rights for the same sex couples was 0.00%. Now in 2004, its upwards of 33%....

Guess what, the messenger is now talking to you about "truth".

 

[Nosmo King]

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it siply because you wanted it.

Was that when marriage was defined as an arraignment or when a dowry was required? Or perhaps was it before certain rights and benefits protected under contract law? Or maybe it was when minor children were bequeathed as part of a political agenda?

Do you believe that marriage as you know it has been locked in a static state, or has the institution of marriage been susceptible to social mores?

 

[dcraelin]

the fact that this comes out of Utah where polygamy was once practiced shows the slippery slope that may develop from this open-ended view of the 14th amendment.
Utah also just had a case that loosened restrictions on polygamist type relationships
The right way to deal with this is to prevent government from giving tax benefits to any couple, which is unfair to single people.
perhaps you could have civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce etc.

We already have "civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce". We call it marriage and that's all it is.
Yes, some people choose to hold a religious ceremony but marriage is, first and foremost a legally binding civil act.
Edited to change the last line to:
Yes, some people choose to hold a religious ceremony but marriage is, first and foremost a legally binding civil contract.

your reply fails to answer a couple of my points.

The word marriage is already historically self-defined. Why gay-marriage activists insist on rubbing their distortion of this definition in the face of religious folks who see it differently is beyond me.

Marriage in government is really kind of a relic from the church-state of England. A state-religion the pilgrims came here to escape.

Government should not bestow tax benefits on anyone based on their relationship status.

 

[Avatar4321]

I believe in it to the bone, kaz, in ALL of it.

Then why ignore the 9th and 10th amendment?

Who is ignoring it? You don't understand their relationship to the 14th Amendment.

You when you fail to recognize that the Constitution is a Goverment of limited jurisdiction and that it does not have the power to legislate in areas that hasn't been authority to. The 14th amendment didn't change that.

 

[candycorn]

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it siply because you wanted it.

Was that when marriage was defined as an arraignment or when a dowry was required? Or perhaps was it before certain rights and benefits protected under contract law? Or maybe it was when minor children were bequeathed as part of a political agenda?

Do you believe that marriage as you know it has been locked in a static state, or has the institution of marriage been susceptible to social mores?

This is why it's so easy to point and laugh at conservatives. In one breath there is this steadfast clinging to what happened literally in this case, "thousands of years ago". Several things were defined at the same time. But somehow conservatives are eager in some cases to cast some definitions aside when it doesn't fit in with their 20th century bigotry, paranoia, superstition, and republican dogma.

Just hilarious.

If some of society can rightly evolve from the time when women were saying "obey" in their marriage vows, surely there can be evolution elsewhere. There was a time when we had debtor's prisons too...we evolved from that since it became pretty clear to merchants that wanted to be paid that a debtor in jail isn't going to be making a lot of scratch... Maybe we should go back to that????

 

[Avatar4321]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

 

[ScienceRocks]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Marriage is what society wants it to be. A marriage between a man and woman is more important simply in the interest of the children. But who the fuck are you and me to tell a gay person what to do?

 

[koshergrl]

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it siply because you wanted it.

Was that when marriage was defined as an arraignment or when a dowry was required? Or perhaps was it before certain rights and benefits protected under contract law? Or maybe it was when minor children were bequeathed as part of a political agenda?

Do you believe that marriage as you know it has been locked in a static state, or has the institution of marriage been susceptible to social mores?

This is why it's so easy to point and laugh at conservatives. In one breath there is this steadfast clinging to what happened literally in this case, "thousands of years ago". Several things were defined at the same time. But somehow conservatives are eager in some cases to cast some definitions aside when it doesn't fit in with their 20th century bigotry, paranoia, superstition, and republican dogma.

Just hilarious.

If some of society can rightly evolve from the time when women were saying "obey" in their marriage vows, surely there can be evolution elsewhere. There was a time when we had debtor's prisons too...we evolved from that since it became pretty clear to merchants that wanted to be paid that a debtor in jail isn't going to be making a lot of scratch... Maybe we should go back to that????

Thank goodness Quaker women took an adamant stand against the practice of imprisoning entire families, eh?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Saying something must be, because that's the way its been, is a fallacy of logic.

 

[Avatar4321]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Saying something must be, because that's the way its been, is a fallacy of logic.

Some things are true no matter how much you would rather they not be. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Simply because groups of people want to redefine it doesn't mean these new relationships are marriage.

 

[Noomi]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Marriage in the US used to be between a man and a woman of the same color, but times have changed, haven't they?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

I agree, and I do conduct business all the time with folks who don't share my faith, and yes gay folks as well. I have no issues with that. What I do have a problem with is being required to participate in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith. For instance if a neighbor who was gay was to invite me to his wedding, I would politely decline the invitation.

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

 

[Nosmo King]

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.

I was unaware you were the one who got to decide how to define marriage for all 300+ Million Americans.

it was defined thousands of years ago. I was unaware that you could redefine it simply because you wanted it.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Saying something must be, because that's the way its been, is a fallacy of logic.

Some things are true no matter how much you would rather they not be. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Simply because groups of people want to redefine it doesn't mean these new relationships are marriage.

Does your opinion justify denial of access to contract law by sober, mature, tax paying citizens? Justify your opposition as something other than hatred and fear of homosexuality.

 

[candycorn]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Saying something must be, because that's the way its been, is a fallacy of logic.

Some things are true no matter how much you would rather they not be. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Simply because groups of people want to redefine it doesn't mean these new relationships are marriage.

Some people like to talk about how many strike outs their pitcher had instead of the final score; especially when they lost. You sound like a loser. It's called a scoreboard for a reason.

 

[candycorn]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Marriage in the US used to be between a man and a woman of the same color, but times have changed, haven't they?

It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. We need more fish.