Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[Benuty]

It is not discrimination at all.
I learned it from my history teacher and internet sources.

Then your history teacher did a very poor job.

Assuming their school district could afford one.

[Christian Democrats]

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

Except the state hasn't defined it that way and thus it is irrelevant

That is how the state has defined it. Family law, with regard to marriage, deals with a whole range of issues regarding parental rights and obligations toward the spouses' children; and adultery is a ground for divorce is almost every state.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'll ask a third time. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Damn, you're hard-headed. The Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to marry encompassed all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Any potentially procreative relationship falls under that heading.

It didn't say that it was for the survival of species.

[Mavorpen]

Damn, you're hard-headed.

Yes, I get stubborn when I see stupidity of the highest order being backed up by blatant intellectual gymnastics.

The Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to marry encompassed all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species.

Yes.

Any potentially procreative relationship falls under that heading.

Bullshit. The amount of cognitive dissonance to seriously argue such drivel baffles me. Food is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Does that make EVERY type of food "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species? Yes or no?

And for the fourth time, are interracial marriages necessary to "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Except the state hasn't defined it that way and thus it is irrelevant

That is how the state has defined it. Family law, with regard to marriage, deals with a whole range of issues regarding parental rights and obligations toward the spouses' children; and adultery is a ground for divorce is almost every state.

Can you quote exactly that from a law code relevant to the US? That the purpose of marriage is for the survival of a species?

[Benuty]

So you admit what exactly? That you are false about your ideals?

I did not admit that my ideas are false. You call it myth worship. I call it truth.

If the truth is false then does that mean you do not exist?

[Geilinor]

Except the state hasn't defined it that way and thus it is irrelevant

That is how the state has defined it. Family law, with regard to marriage, deals with a whole range of issues regarding parental rights and obligations toward the spouses' children; and adultery is a ground for divorce is almost every state.

Not every married couple will choose to have children, and being grounds for divorce does not make it a crime.

[Christian Democrats]

your definition isn't the only definition

Right! That's why issues like this one ought to be settled via the normal democratic process.

[Mavorpen]

your definition isn't the only definition

Right! That's why issues like this one ought to be settled via the normal democratic process.

So Loving was wrong then and should have been left up to the states.

[Katganistan]

Also, anyone else think Stephen Fry choosing now to get married might have a bit to do with this? Is that worth its own thread?

Did he? Good for him! He and his partner have been together for a decade as far as I recall. May they remain very happy together.

[Geilinor]

your definition isn't the only definition

Right! That's why issues like this one ought to be settled via the normal democratic process.

The Supreme Court has to step in when there is a possible conflict with the Constitution.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I did not admit that my ideas are false. You call it myth worship. I call it truth.

If the truth is false then does thay mean you do not exist?

That would be the case.

[Novorobo]

Also...

It's not a religious definition of marriage; it's a valid definition of marriage. One of the most atheist countries in the developed world, Japan, has a constitution that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship

Yeah, but they're also more overt in their defense of traditional gender roles in general. Saying it's about gender roles wouldn't fly in Europe or North America like saying it's about religion would, whereas in Japan it's the opposite.

[Katganistan]

Marriage is secularly a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves.

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

No, that is the legal definition.
Face it: you CANNOT get religiously married in the US without a STATE license.

Guess which takes precedence? Because if you have no state license, you do NOT get the tax benefits and all the rest.

Please, PLEASE learn a little about what you're talking about.

[Christian Democrats]

Right! That's why issues like this one ought to be settled via the normal democratic process.

So Loving was wrong then and should have been left up to the states.

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

[Wisconsin9]

I'll ask a third time. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Damn, you're hard-headed. The Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to marry encompassed all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Any potentially procreative relationship falls under that heading.

Homosexual relationships are potentially procreative.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Also, anyone else think Stephen Fry choosing now to get married might have a bit to do with this? Is that worth its own thread?

Did he? Good for him! He and his partner have been together for a decade as far as I recall. May they remain very happy together.

Couldn't be, he married a 26 year old.

[Katganistan]

Folderol. You're applying a religious meaning to the word in a secular society, that has BEEN a secular society since its creation.

Do you not understand the First Amendment? Or the Treaty of Tripoli?

Do you REALLY have to ask?

Those were some of them-there rhetorical questions.

[Geilinor]

So Loving was wrong then and should have been left up to the states.

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

The Fourteenth Amendment can't possibly apply to gay individuals?

[Mavorpen]

So Loving was wrong then and should have been left up to the states.

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

And it's also been held to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, TWICE, in fact.

Please don't ignore my posts.

Interracial marriages are not required for our very existence and survival as a species.

Try harder.

Oh, and he also conveniently ignores that they said this right before the "fundamental to our very existence and survival" part:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

So it cites the Due Process Clause and states that the freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Funnily enough, we have the precedent set by SCOTUS when it comes to Due Process and homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
So yeah, not seeing ANY legitimate basis for Loving being a serious argument against gay marriage.

Damn, you're hard-headed.

Yes, I get stubborn when I see stupidity of the highest order being backed up by blatant intellectual gymnastics.

The Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to marry encompassed all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species.

Yes.

Any potentially procreative relationship falls under that heading.

Bullshit. The amount of cognitive dissonance to seriously argue such drivel baffles me. Food is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Does that make EVERY type of food "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species? Yes or no?

And for the fourth time, are interracial marriages necessary to "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

[Novorobo]

Except the state hasn't defined it that way and thus it is irrelevant

That is how the state has defined it. Family law, with regard to marriage, deals with a whole range of issues regarding parental rights and obligations toward the spouses' children; and adultery is a ground for divorce is almost every state.

You still haven't addressed how adoption factors into this.

[Arcturus Novus]

I do hope they vote on the side of SS marriage. I'd like to live in a nation where LGBT individuals' rights are respected as anyone else's.

[Mavorpen]

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

The Fourteenth Amendment can't possibly apply to gay individuals?

The joke's on him, it ALREADY has been.

[Lost heros]

So Loving was wrong then and should have been left up to the states.

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

Funnily, enough. The Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically mention races, and could easily be applied to sexuality minorities.

[Christian Democrats]

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

No, that is the legal definition.

Source for "a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves" is THE legal definition of marriage everywhere in the United States?