You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 01:02:41 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage  (Read 2564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #50 on: June 28, 2015, 07:08:24 AM »
      It's perhaps a little less sticky now that the Court has said states cannot refuse to certify marriages on the basis of orientation. 

      There was already the Elaine Photography case where the Court refused to undo the state rulings that photographers could not call refusal to provide service solely on the basis of orientation.  As I recall, the plaintiffs had attempted to shift their rationale from a language of freedom of religion to one of freedom of speech before sending it to the Supremes, but they didn't take it up at all. 

      Sure some people might pull off "mundane" excuses until it becomes an obvious pattern worthy of legal attention.  But there are also laws that one can't discriminate in the public provision of services.  That's what the New Mexico case was basically about.  With the addition of specific state non-discrimination laws, which are notably missing from some states however.  Now the Supreme Court opinion has placed sexual orientation a shade closer to a basic liberty, so that would be in play if it were to come again to a national question.  Once this is treated as a basic aspect of recognized identity classes, then I would expect it's easier to argue it's worthy of protection from other forms of discrimination like selective denial of service.

 
No sadly, no less sticky. If you're forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and stamping on one basic liberty with another basic liberty that's only going to cause resentment and hatred, and I bet the courts come down on the first amendment liberty before the newest one. I think the old adage of spend your money elsewhere is probably the best idea. I'm actually sure most wedding places will be happy for the business, so it's not worth antagonizing the ones that have religious reasoning, mainly because I think a lot of people would use that as, "See now that they can get married they're bullying people into blah blah blah."

I mean this isn't as clear as racial refusal because no one can say, "The Bible says thou shalt not sell a pastrami sandwich to a black man at the lunch counter."

There were a lot of people holding up the Bible with murky, sketchy, and outright lying manipulation to do stuff like that, but the Bible is a lot more clear on this.

Let's try to fabricate an example. Say the SCOTUS says all eating establishments have to serve pork (I know it's silly, go with it), even the Jewish and Muslim ones. Would you force an orthodox person of those faiths to handle pork because that's what the law says?

I just think the better thing would be find someone happy to host the wedding. Forcing someone (and since wedding services tend to be privately owned and can Hobby Lobby that kind of thing) with strong religious objections is the wrong way to go. On that gay rights has little gain, and a lot more to lose.

Offline consortium11

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2015, 09:31:08 AM »
No sadly, no less sticky. If you're forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and stamping on one basic liberty with another basic liberty that's only going to cause resentment and hatred, and I bet the courts come down on the first amendment liberty before the newest one. I think the old adage of spend your money elsewhere is probably the best idea. I'm actually sure most wedding places will be happy for the business, so it's not worth antagonizing the ones that have religious reasoning, mainly because I think a lot of people would use that as, "See now that they can get married they're bullying people into blah blah blah."

Not so much.

Kylie's already linked to the most high-profile US case on matters related to this, Elaine Photography (full judgement here). In that case a wedding photographer declined to shoot a commitment ceremony (gay marriage was not legal at the time in New Mexico) for a gay couple and sued after they were fined by the state's humann rights commission under its human rights act (essentially their anti-discrimination one). The New Mexico supreme court took apart both the free speech and religious freedom arguments that were raised.


Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2015, 09:32:21 AM »
Quote
No sadly, no less sticky. If you're forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and stamping on one basic liberty with another basic liberty that's only going to cause resentment and hatred, and I bet the courts come down on the first amendment liberty before the newest one.
      Eh, the religious right has been saying pretty much the same thing about courts allowing same-sex marriage at all.  The courts aren't having it much longer, seems to be the trend of things.  Certainly not the Supreme Court.

Quote
I think the old adage of spend your money elsewhere is probably the best idea.
      It may be more practical -- except in areas where there is just that much discrimination, or too few local businesses to turn to.  At the same time, businesses that are denying public business (not religious pews in a church) under an explicit rhetoric of discrimination, are kind of asking for more litigation too.  It isn't as if they are all generally making up plausible excuses as you suggested earlier.  Rather, they're saying front and center, "We don't approve of your kind so much that we're worried taking a photo or baking a cake would tarnish our souls."  But there are laws about providing services equally.

Quote
I mean this isn't as clear as racial refusal because no one can say, "The Bible says thou shalt not sell a pastrami sandwich to a black man at the lunch counter."
      People can say the Bible means lots of things, and in fact, I don't believe it actually said most of the things the right has interpreted it to mean about same-sex relations.  People "could" say the Bible provides all sorts of racial metaphors too, if they were so inclined.  Just for one example:

Quote
One of the most popular biblical stories is also the one most often used to justify white racial superiority. After he disembarked from his 40-day cruise, Noah went a little wild in his celebrations, resulting in a bit of indecent exposure whilst passed out on the floor. Noah's son, Ham, walked in on him and saw the display. Rather than covering Noah, Ham went and blabbed all about it. When Noah recovered from his bender, he was not pleased with Ham and so he cursed Ham's son: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25). Eventually the Canaanites did indeed become slaves to the Jews, so end of story, right? Nah...

Some claim that people with dark skin descended from Ham, while white folks came from Japheth and Asians came from Shem. Ham's name is thought to translate to 'black /dark,' and his descendants populated North-East Africa (Cush's descendants populated Sudan, Mizraim to Egypt, Phut to Libya, while Canaan's folks went to Israel). Again, the claim here is that both the skin, the curse, and the seedy disposition are heritable.
 

Quote
Let's try to fabricate an example. Say the SCOTUS says all eating establishments have to serve pork (I know it's silly, go with it), even the Jewish and Muslim ones. Would you force an orthodox person of those faiths to handle pork because that's what the law says?
      It's an extraneous, slippery slope argument to me.  We aren't approaching this.  What we have is people arguing about whether delivering a cake, somehow makes them inextricably "approving" of a particular marriage.  While it's not the end of the world to me if people have to go to another county if they want a cake, setting a precedent that tangible services can be denied would be perhaps a bit dangerous.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 09:37:33 AM by kylie »

Offline Cycle

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2015, 11:23:45 AM »
Question:  after the Supreme Court struck down the State bans on interracial marriage, did Congress thereafter pass a law "authorizing" interracial marriage?


Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2015, 01:36:54 PM »
Question:  after the Supreme Court struck down the State bans on interracial marriage, did Congress thereafter pass a law "authorizing" interracial marriage?
To the best of my knowledge - no. There was no reason to do so. When the Supreme Court ruled state restrictions on interracial marriage unconstitutional in Loving vs. Virginia, those state laws that barred interracial marriage became invalid and unenforceable. With no laws any longer in force restricting such marriages they were placed on the same level as other marriages allowed at the time pretty much by default.

As an aside, even if Congress had felt it necessary to pass such a law, I doubt it would have been valid, as marriage law is (as far as I can tell) the sole province of the states and beyond what can be ruled on by Congress.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2015, 04:05:36 PM »
Not touching the politics here. Just wanted to post this:

Congratulations too all gay people who can now be as miserable as the rest of us. Welcome to another step towards equality.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2015, 10:34:50 PM »
Mike Huckabee, a runner-up for the spresidency of course (even if he's not that likely to win) appeals for Christians to do what Martin Luther King did: civil disobedience and mass protests (on just what occasions should you show your disobedience to this law and still make it clear that ahem, you're against the law but *not* against the actual people, the couples who will be getting married and having their mutual love recognized?)  ::)

"Will you obey God and his sense of justice or this skewed law?"

Oh the irony.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #57 on: June 28, 2015, 10:45:56 PM »
Mike Huckabee, a runner-up for the spresidency of course (even if he's not that likely to win) appeals for Christians to do what Martin Luther King did: civil disobedience and mass protests (on just what occasions should you show your disobedience to this law and still make it clear that ahem, you're against the law but *not* against the actual people, the couples who will be getting married and having their mutual love recognized?)  ::)

"Will you obey God and his sense of justice or this skewed law?"

Oh the irony.

Just replace Barry with Mike :P


Offline Mikem

  • *Cancer Survivor*
  • Permabanned
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: In the damp and dreary Pacific Northwest
  • Gender: Male
  • No labels. I'm a Man and that's all that I am.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2015, 02:00:12 AM »
And to think, it only took the United States of America 239 years to realize this.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2015, 03:51:20 AM »
As the Supreme Court decision didn't exist in a vacuum I thought I'd drop a link here to the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision the whole SC case was about:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1354856/6th-circuit.pdf

The majority decision that overturned the decisions of the lower courts (which all would have allowed same-sex marriage) is some thing I (as a layman and not a legal expert) certainly feel should have been ripped apart, as I feel the appeals court missed - or perhaps deliberately avoided - the equal protection point as much as it could.

What I found much more interesting is the dissenting opinion by judge Daughtrey (p. 43-64). Not only does it sum up the case in question (DeBoer vs. Snyder) very well, it is also fairly easy to follow and (in my layman's opinion) very well argued. It's a real goldmine of arguments why state bans on same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2015, 04:52:01 AM »
      I thought some of the dissenting opinions in that case actually said a lot more about law than Kennedy seems to have actually laid out in this latest decision.  Just one point that comes to mind right away: specifying whether fundamental rights demand strict scrutiny (p. 53).  I suppose one might think that should be obvious, but Kennedy has taken some flak for not stopping to spell it out anywhere.  And the majority in this Circuit case did some pretty odd things, like fussing about whether strict scrutiny should be applied to who can leave a marriage, when the case was actually about who could choose to enter one with who in the first place.

      That's quite a nice collection of arguments, yes.  Still working through some of it.  Cheers.


Offline Cognitive Brainfart

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #61 on: July 02, 2015, 01:13:32 PM »
I don't really understand why it's such a big deal that the U.S legalized same-sex marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that same-sex couples can get legally married now (in the U.S). It's truly a great change for them, not only in terms of having the right to be treated as other couples in this regard, but also when it comes to practical everyday life.
But... many countries have had this even before the U.S and nobody made a big deal about those? There were no rainbow overlays on facebook when Sweden did it, so why now? Could it be that people are more aware of the issue of same-sex couples right now?
Also, the U.S might have legalized such marriage, but they still support countries in which one can get killed for their sexual orientation, so there's still a lot of change to go through in that regard.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #62 on: July 02, 2015, 09:06:37 PM »
There was mention of same sex marriages being performed by county clerks and judges. Here in Tn., county clerks are refusing to perform any marriages to avoid performing same sex marriages... or flat out resigning to keep from doing them.

Offline Ryven

  • Keeper of Cowthulhu | Pure Awesomenesity
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: The farthest reaches of your dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • The night's pleasure follows in my footsteps
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #63 on: July 02, 2015, 10:16:27 PM »
There was mention of same sex marriages being performed by county clerks and judges. Here in Tn., county clerks are refusing to perform any marriages to avoid performing same sex marriages... or flat out resigning to keep from doing them.

I read an article that stated that they can refuse to perform marriages, but they must still issue the licenses.  The article was from a local Tn. news source.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #64 on: July 02, 2015, 11:22:34 PM »
That is true, but as a form of protecting themselves so they don't have people trying to sue for discrimination, they are refusing to do any marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - or outright resigning to protest.

Offline Ryven

  • Keeper of Cowthulhu | Pure Awesomenesity
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: The farthest reaches of your dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • The night's pleasure follows in my footsteps
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #65 on: July 03, 2015, 12:12:46 PM »
That is true, but as a form of protecting themselves so they don't have people trying to sue for discrimination, they are refusing to do any marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - or outright resigning to protest.

I actually wouldn't expect them to.  That part should be optional.  If my boyfriend and I decided to get married, we could, if we wish, have an actual marriage ceremony elsewhere so long as the license is still able to be obtained.

Offline Cycle

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #66 on: July 03, 2015, 12:35:03 PM »
Quick Google search shows that the process in Tennessee is to (1) get the license from the Clerk, which is good for 30 days, and then (2) find someone to solemnize it.  Part 2 can be completed by a religious leader of any faith or numerous civil officials, not just the Clerk.



Stray thought:  Now that same sex marriage is legal in Indiana, can the Church of Cannabis marry people?  ;)

« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 02:04:34 PM by Cycle »

Offline Far eyes

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #67 on: July 03, 2015, 02:37:59 PM »
http://satwcomic.com/red-white-and-rainbow-stripes

Not sure if somebody posted this already, but that's about my feelings on it


Offline Cognitive Brainfart

Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #68 on: July 03, 2015, 06:37:59 PM »
http://satwcomic.com/red-white-and-rainbow-stripes

Not sure if somebody posted this already, but that's about my feelings on it




If this were facebook, I would give you a like.

Offline DemonessOfDeathValley

  • For those who are gone.....but never forgotten....
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2013
  • Location: Somewhere between sleep and awake
  • Gender: Female
  • I remember......
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #69 on: July 03, 2015, 09:08:50 PM »
I'm extremely happy about this because it means no matter who I fall in love with, I can get married if we choose. I also feel very blessed to be part of a part of a Christian church who welcomes same sex couples.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #70 on: July 04, 2015, 12:48:40 PM »
     I don't know if much will come of it or not, but the right is still all upset (perhaps, naturally?).  I'm poking through a symposium of social conservative thinkers mentioned in a Guardian summary article here.  All  trying to imagine a bit, wherever the opposition is going...

     While I don't agree with the general trend, where many hint or claim the whole society is basically going to hell as a result of same-sex marriage expanding... I kinda have to appreciate the spunk of how much they wiggle and look for procedural loopholes.  At least a little.  And there are a few that actually are a bit revealing from what they seem to hint about Christian and more conservative communities themselves.

Some
Quote from: Anderson
The Court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.
    ---  Not that Roe v. Wade has gone away any time soon, so I have to wonder what they expect to get by bringing that up.  Hopefully not rather intimidation-oriented protests and bombings at same-sex marriages/clerks/churches to complement protests and bombings at abortion clinics (aargh). 

     But aside from such nastiness in historical tactics of opposition:  Granted, there's no point arguing that they should give up arguing simply because a court says so.

Quote from: Anderson (continues)
Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
      I wonder a little whose evidence they are referring to, as there are a good few books on gender around the world (from anthropology no less) that would unsettle this notion.  And there's no empirical case that children of same-sex couples are doing worse than those of different-sex couples, controlling for the predictable (external prejudice) effects of existing discrimination against same-sex couples generally.

       Another thing that's worrisome about this line is it suggests that the right may become more antagonistic toward Trans/Queer population in the future.  Much in the name of protecting the children of course...  Which was the same old line that's been used to smear gays (particularly gay men) for decades at least now.  The more things change, the more social conservativism doesn't.  Or is that in the definition of social conservativism too:  "Much keep up the same old smear lines forever?" 

       The only silver lining is, it obviously doesn't work in the Supreme Court.  They dropped the very same arguments the court had already rejected in Windsor.   

Quote from: Arkes
In the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln came forth with the most penetrating critique, and he proceeded to lead a national movement to counter and overturn that decision. He and his Congress would move through ordinary statutes, before raising the matter to the level of a constitutional amendment. All of these ingredients should be in place.
      So he wants to compare animus against the Black population which clearly excluded them from citizenship to...  What?  To a decision which social conservatives don't like.  As if they are somehow completely excluded, or unable to function, in a society which has same-sex marriage.  Someone needs to come out in public and explain exactly what these people feel they are being denied.  Personally, I think it would have to reasonably start with 'being the only kind of people allowed to have marriage' -- but it's very tricky to say that and not be flagged as discriminatory.  Psychologically it makes a certain defensive sense (though no less than same-sex couples' wanting to get married!)...  But then, you run into the land where married people get material benefits and social approval and others don't.   

      If this is basically a demand that gender roles be strictly segregated and enforced -- which is more what Anderson seems to be approaching in the quote further above --  then well, if they actually expect any serious response then people need to hear all the details and evidence.  (If in fact there wasn't enough of this same argument in the circuit case that shot down Proposition 8?)  I don't believe this very reaching Dred Scott comparison, or a more rigid legislation of gender roles should be worthy of judicial approval.  But I also don't believe they have even bothered to do the work of enunciating just where that is all coming from.  That is if in fact, anyone has seriously done research to think through it.  Most of the scant academic writing coming down against same-sex couples parenting has since been discredited...  So I don't see either a threat to children, OR exclusion of hetero couples going on there. 

        But maybe there is some broader agenda about roles of men and women in society here that could be at least explicated.  However, I strongly suspect it's one that would involve something like returning to a 1950's family that rarely if ever quite existed at all in the actual history.  So, perhaps if they dared to upset still more women, especially, in the process.

Quote from: Bauerlein
It’s time for conservatives to apply principles to their purses. Coca-Cola, ESPN, and Walmart are prominent cases of corporate culture warfare, and every time a conservative buys a Coke, watches SportsCenter, or enters the megastore, he helps them do their damage.
      Wow, I'm starting to believe the Republican Party must be much more fragmented than I realized!  Conservatives believe corporations are bad???  Whatever happened to the rhetoric of sacred, untouchable "job creators" who can be denied no tax break anywhere?  Is it really only the whiter-collar sorts voting more directly for that, and others are cobbled together on social issues and other particular fusses like gun control or race?  I wonder now.  Cause I sure hear Republican figures spewing out a lot of 'Anyone can be responsible and work harder and be successful in America (structural inequality? huh? where?! surely only Europe limits anyone!!)...  but job creators must never lose a dime to evil big government!'

      And conservatives are against sports culture and megastores?  Really?!  What have I been missing in the last few years, cause that isn't the image of key conservative voters which I have long understood to be out there (rural, often white, working class, often enough male, very invested in masculine spectacles like American football and always talking about who's beating on who or whoever's "tougher" or "owns" who).

Quote from: Carmy
Justice Alito’s dissent notes the rate of illegitimate birth, and nobody is shocked at the routine acceptance of marital infidelity and instability. All this is ominous for the sustainability of Western civilization. To outsiders, however, it appears inconsistent and selective to judge practicing homosexuals, for whom same-sex impulses are usually deep-seated, more strictly than wanton adulterers.
      Aha?  Is this what some are really after here -- locking up those women in chastity belts when the hubby's away and making divorce unthinkable?  Well, at least someone is thinking somewhat about getting one's errrm, house "in order" before going on the offensive.   ::)  Gawd.

Quote from: Leithart
Some Christians aren’t convinced that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts. Let the Courts and the States go where they will. It’s absurd to urge the country to affirm Christian marriage until we’re united on the question. Given today’s disarray, that’s the work of a century or more.

Churches must take responsibility for marriages and families. The argument that we need to protect marriage for children is true in principle, laughable in practice. In sections of America, marriages aren’t steady enough to protect anyone. The best argument for traditional marriage is a thriving traditional marriage.
      At least this one strikes me as more reasonable.  When Biblical scholars don't all agree, you need to do more research first or accept that there's no united front.  I don't think most of these people even know enough about the language and culture Paul (and probably many of the others!) wrote from.

      Agreed many marriages don't last.  But can anyone make them, in the society we have?  Umm.  ::)  It's actually many of those states that claim to value traditional heterosexual marriage most, that have higher teen pregnancy and domestic violence rates.

Quote from: Novak
To continue to even use the same word “marriage” is to employ a homonym. Let Jewish and Christian clergy use the Hebrew term kiddushin for what they are now solemnizing, which is the virtual equivalent of the Latin term sacramentum. Traditional religious marriage is holy; this new revolutionary institution is, by contrast, profane.
      I don't know quite what to make of this one yet...  It's rather amusing in the desperation to find distance and distinction, anywhere one can.  Which seems to be at the heart of the whole conservative upset actually, in my opinion...  This idea that 'we must be sanctified' not only religiously but socially, and only by having a different and apparently older word can one achieve that. 

      Except, what would they do when they realized that so many laws don't cover those terms, any more than they required inclusion for all the people who had only "civil unions"?!!

Quote from: Schmidtz
Marriage simply cannot and will not accommodate everyone. In 1960, one in ten adults had never been married. Today it is nearly one in five—with fifty percent of that number saying that they wish they were married. Marriage has declined the most among those who are the worst off. Men with only a high school degree or less are more likely than those with a further degree never to have married (25 percent v. 14 percent). A similar disparity exists between blacks (36 percent) and whites (16 percent). Those who do marry now marry later than ever.

We are moving toward a post-marriage future. While marriage will long continue to be the reality for a majority of Americans, its centrality to the culture and importance to individuals will only continue to ebb. How can the Court’s marriage idealism accommodate this reality? Where is the “nobility and dignity” for the Appalachian man without a high-school diploma, the single woman in Spanish Harlem, the twenty-something unpaid intern? Perhaps the justices forgot that not everyone was born in the 1950s and grew up to be an elite.

...  As more and more Americans live more and more of their lives outside of marriage, Christians must recover the forms of radical solidarity that gave St. Paul confidence when he said that it was good not to marry.
      You know, I think he's basically right.  Even while it's awesome that same-sex couples can marry, it's also true that it's become difficult for many people to afford the commitments and often, the sort of ceremony that is expected of marriage in the US.  So either definitions of what marriage IS will have to keep changing radically (here I mean not what sex one can marry, but what one is supposed to do about having a ceremony or what one will do in terms of living together or which benefits it will actually include for anyone exactly). 

     And there is a whole slew of reasons that what benefits marriage gives, shouldn't only be limited to "couples" or "households" defined and regulated in the odd ways that marriage does today.  So those on the conservative end who are moving away from having marriage at all, even if they do so in response to the same-sex marriage decision etc., may actually dovetail with liberals who are skeptical of marriage as a central institution.  Not that either group is necessarily a sweeping majority or the "center" of either side as yet...  But there are real problems still pending with the larger picture of all marriage does in the society period, and this is getting at a piece of them.

« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 12:51:06 PM by kylie »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #71 on: July 04, 2015, 01:03:59 PM »
I will never stop finding it funny how many people act like authorities on the Constitution and forget the Ninth Amendment. (Yes, this includes Scalia.)

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #72 on: July 04, 2015, 01:56:18 PM »
     Oh, this is kinda fun.  Silliness alert.   8-)

Just a sample:

Quote
Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that for the Supreme Court to legalise same-sex marriage is to overturn nature, which is impossible.

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee)
June 26, 2015
The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.

However, same-sex marriage is now legal, so clearly it is possible for humans to overturn nature. This opens up a wide variety of problems, given how nature is responsible for everything that keeps the planet running. Clearly LGBT people have the power to overrule nature to suit their own needs. While we can hope they restrict this ability to things like increasing the number of rainbows, there’s no guarantee of this. What if some careless homosexual is struggling with a heavy suitcase and decides to lower the mass of the planet to reduce the strength of gravity? We’d all be flung out of the atmosphere without warning.

Offline Ryven

  • Keeper of Cowthulhu | Pure Awesomenesity
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: The farthest reaches of your dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • The night's pleasure follows in my footsteps
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage
« Reply #73 on: July 04, 2015, 06:13:41 PM »
     Oh, this is kinda fun.  Silliness alert.   8-)

Just a sample:

I...I have super powers?!  OH MY GOD, THIS IS AMAZING!  WHY DIDN'T I KNOW THIS BEFORE?