821–830 of 1001 posts
Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a lawyer, could you explain how denying over 1,000 federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples would be offering them equal protection under the law?
First, this is not what laws were challenged. The laws that were challenged are very specific. As roberts says, "petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically" Had they challenged benefits laws, that would change the equal protection analysis significantly. But in this lawsuit, given what they've actually challenged , the normal precedent would be…
So, I assume you're leaving Loving v. Virginia out of that figure? [1]
Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
This is not the case, at least in western/european culture. In fact, the reverse is true. Marriage was not thought of as a religious institution until pretty late in the game -- certainly not until after 1000. (For example, marriage was not declared a sacrament until the Council of Trent in the 1500s.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a ton of legal ramifications, including tax benefits (it's advantageous for a married couple to file income taxes jointly), immigration (spousal visas etc.), inheritance, and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...
I believe immigration and federal taxes, which are handled solely by the federal government, are not affected as the US (on a national level) already recognized same-sex marriages after the DOMA overrule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.
What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do either of those have to do with polygamy?
There was a time when homosexuality was considered morally wrong by the majority of people in this country. Polygamy was also considered wrong, as was incest, marrying children, bestiality, and probably some other things that I'm forgetting. So my question is this: Given that the majority of people here seem to be so liberal-minded that they consider (consensual, non-coercive) polygamy to be fine, is there anything t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.
What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.
I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. The government doesn't care if you plan to have kids when you get married, there's no tick box saying "You agree that this marriage license is only valid if you have kids.". Marriage is about a union, that's it.
Marriage has everything to do with procreation. For most of human history, and without having to get into more specific details, a man and woman living together for more than a short time usually resulted in children. The institution was enacted to encourage such couples to avoid getting into such a situation unless they agreed to stay together, ensuring the likely offspring would be raised by their own parents (gene…
Ridiculous concept. Most of human history was based on a gift economy, in small groups not couples, partly because it was unlikely to know for certain that one specific kid was yours. It's only later on that humans lived in smaller and smaller groups. The concept of a nuclear family is relatively new, in fact many societies still have the entire first degree family living together (India).
And besides, we're all tired of the argument, marriage today has little resemblance to its old form.
You know why you ask the girl's father's permission when asking her hand in marriage? Because traditionally, girls were the property of their fathers and it was literally a transfer of goods. So I don't really care what happened for "millions of years".
>>> There's no point in formal social recognition of a union if there's no chance of reproductive consequences thereof.
I beg to differ. There are many many many legal reasons one would want to get married to your loved one, I won't bother explaining them to you, as I'm sure you know them.
You can redefine the purpose of marriage however you want, but at the end of the day, legally there is no mention of procreation when you sign a marriage certificate. Unless you are seriously suggesting we should verify the fertility of couples before they get married?
The real reason for official recognition of unions is that, as a married man/woman, you are less likely to create damage to society, you are seen more stable, it has nothing to do with your ability to procreate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Of course, there are even more powerful arguments in favor of marriage equality. For one thing, the black letter language of the Constitution, right smack in the beginning of it prior to any amendments, requires all the states to honor each other's judicial proceedings, public acts, and records. It's not clear cut as you imply. If it were, Concealed Carry Licenses for handguns would have reciprocity everywhere.
I think I just said it's not that clear-cut. :) Another really helpful thing to remember about the Constitution is that it's incoherent. The framers were not logicians and the Constitution was not an exercise in formal consistency. There are provisions and even rights that conflict directly with each other. And that's by design, too. The idea is to set up an enduring process that will generally converge, like a good…
Seidman is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Asking gay people to wait for a unicorn is bullshit. Please don't be That Guy. Ideological purity is so often the enemy of making the world better. But, why not? I'm a male. And I'm bisexual and polyamorus. I understand, and accept if a family wants to have 3 adults. Or 4 adults. I'm even OK if children are raised in that atmosphere. Right now, there are rules and restrictions on polygamy (which is a subset of poly…
I've often wondered if polyamorus families could make an end run around the old anti-polygamy laws by creating a corporation. It would give legal protection for shared property and money. Would also provide a mechanism for divorce by allowing the remaining people to buy out the shares of the person leaving. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a start. I'm personally not poly in any way, but it's a fun thought expe…
Corporations can't issue medical directives for an incapacitated person.
Corporate shareholders don't get hospital visitation rights or medical insurance via someone's job, et c.