Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 175 Replies latest social current

  • garyneal
    For that reason, marriage became a secular contract between two people and the government.

    It is that last part that makes me bristle. It is like two people are in essence, marrying each other and the government. I know couples don't see it this way but that wording does suggest it.

    People can still "get married" without the government. The rise of cohabiting couples who have children and pretty much carry on in every way as if they are married minus the marriage license is proof of that. Two people can commit to each other in "marriage" without any religious or secular ceremonies. Two people can decide to have a ceremony in either a religious or a secular context.

    The rest is just property and legal obligations that the partners agree to privately and that can easily be handled under a separate legally binding contract similar to a business partnership. In case of a later contract dispute, that can be handled in civil court just as other contract disputes are handled now. For those who think that drawing up contracts detract from romantic view of marriage, a simple template that simply says something like upon dissolving of the contract (ie divorce) joint assets are split 50-50 and both parents are awarded automatic joint custody of the kids unless one partner is a significant threat to the kids.

    In short, I just don't see how a marriage should be a contract between both partners and the state.

  • kaik

    I disagree, because there is much more involved than business relationship that are defined in marriage. Marriage protects two people from testifying against each other, unlike in business relationship. Marriage laws and business laws are different. Business tends to outlive the founders of the corporation, and the regulations are far different.

    In short, I just don't see how a marriage should be a contract between both partners and the state.

    I see it as contract between two and the government. Additionally, SSA handles survival benefits and other issues just from THIS particular contract.

  • kaik
    Depending on the state, cohabitation is defined differently and can be considered common law marriage. However, from many benefits the marriage has cohabitation laws do not have as significant standing as real marriage. Even in the terms of immigration, SSA, and judicial standing, cohabitation are rather worthless.
  • Viviane
    The day Viviane has a friendly disposition and her posts aren't full of spite, sarcasm, and a bad attitude will be the day that the GB are finally honest and do away with the policy of shunning ex members, and muslims worldwide become peaceful. ie it'll never happen!

    My my, fundies are so full of rage and wrong. It would be amusing if it weren't sad.

  • Viviane
    Exhibit A, Miss Viviane. Can you be any less hateful or vitriolic?

    What an odd and wrong thing to say. I don't hate anyone nor am I bitter about anything (a key component of vitriol).

    Perhaps you're confusing "doesn't suffer fools" with words you clearly didn't think about before you wrote them.

    Viviane, feel free to spew hate or vitriol at me if you disagree.

    Don't be melodramatic. Any response you get will purely be based on the quality of thought you've put into what you write next. I've no more desire or time to bother hating you or what you write than I do an ant.

    Marriage would be little more than a contract between two (or more) consenting adults. The contract would spell out mostly the financial obligations as well as child custody in the event the marriage contract is dissolved.

    Well, I don't hate it. You didn't think it through, however. Government, i.e. the state, is exactly who enforces contracts. When aarriage is dissolved today, there is typically a consent decree outlining child support, alimony, separation of property, etc., all enforced by the government. The initial marriage contract is recorded by the government. Government is the body that enforces and settled contracts via the court system.

    Your argument makes as much sense as people saying they want the government out of their social security and Medicaid. By definition, the thing you want is logically impossible.

  • Rattigan350

    Orphancrow: "A "dissenting opinion" is always welcomed here. Ignorance and inaccurate facts that those opinions are based upon are not."

    I quoted and agreed with the dissenters on the Supreme court. Thus I was not ignorant or inaccurate. In Survivor when a person is a swing vote, that person is considered the most powerful person in the game. In this case, perhaps, Stephen Breyer was the most powerful person in the nation as he could have been the swing vote. Kennedy wrote that mess. We know that the one who was drunk at the state of the union, Ginsberg was always a liberal. Kagan, Soto-mayer they are just followers who joined to get a favor later, or they owed a favor.

    And people say it was a good ruling???

  • Rattigan350
    Cappytan: "

    I'm of the opinion that the government should have absolutely nothing to say about marriage between consenting adults at all. its none of their damn business"

    I agree. But to those who said the that it is involved to insure their rights. It is the government that takes rights away,not protects them.

    Marriage is like pioneering. Back when the hour requirement changed from 90 to 70 I asked many Witnesses, why pioneer, if you have 70 hours to devote to the ministry, why not just get 70 hours in without filling out a form and asking permission of the elders since there was no pioneer discount, other than going to pioneer school. Many answered that they need the outside commitment. It is the same with marriage. If you are committed to someone, just make your own commitment and work things out, a license is a crutch. By having a marriage license to fall back on, people think that they have to stay together because of the license because getting a divorce is too difficult.

  • Rattigan350
    Viviane said "So far, the dissent is based on either an utterly faulty understanding and willful ignorance of the history of marriage or upon a book that condones murder, slavery, misogyny, rape, genocide and racism that endorsed and commanded many different types of m

    Why should I have anything BUT disdain for those opinions?"

    No, the dissent is on the fact that "The substance of the decree is not of immense personal importance to me [or me either]. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

    Exactly what I stated. And Alito said "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends." Wow!!!!

  • Finkelstein

    Five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

    Bullshit they upheld democracy by letting the rights of individual choice !

    If you have religious viewpoints against gay marriage, then an individual can make that choice individually within themselves but if you don't have a ideological viewpoint against gay marriage derived from religion, you have that right or choice as well .

    The Supreme court decision lets the individual decide among the population as a whole.

    Gay marriage has no detrimental aspect to rest of the population in a social environment and might very well improve the society's outward acceptance of that minority group .

    So some people are born gay, big deal, move on its 2015

  • Simon
    Five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

    Those judges and that constitution may one day be the thing protecting YOU from a life in prison for disagreeing with something.

    Democracy and freedom doesn't seem to be the natural resting state of governments. It needs to be upheld and protected to prevent abuses. Often this means protecting a minority against larger groups.

    The claims of being persecuted are lame, Christians are the largest group in America and some of them want to use their position to abuse the rights of others.

    The Supreme Court and the constitution is what protects us from them and also what protects them from genuine abuses and discrimination that they may one day face. They only have THEIR freedoms because of the same constitution and court that they are so willing to criticize.

Share this