Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

Tenshinai wrote:

Eyal wrote:Every one of those arguments applies equally to heterosexual marriages where the couple is infertile for whatever reason.

Indeed. And "mental problems from break ups", that depends on how badly the people involved handle it, something that is less likely to involve everyone if there´s more people involved at all.

Not necessarily; I can imagine scenarios where a more complex marriage would have more complex fallout, since everyone is affected (unless you're talking about a group marriage which is so large that it's effectively more like a series of seperate marriages where each individual belongs to more than one subgroup).

For example: Imagine Anne, Bob, Charlie and Diane are all part of a polygamous marriage. Charlie and Diane's relationship deteriorates to the point where she gets fed up and leaves the group. As Anne and Bob love Diane, their relationship with Charlie becomes more acrimonous as they see him as responsible for the break.

For all the talk about "redefinition of marriage", SSM fits neatly into existing legal structures, as for the most part there is no difference between a gay couple and a mutually infertile heterosexual couple. Group marriages, OTOH, require a major change in existing structures with all the porblems inherent in that.

gcomeau wrote:
Even if it was, it still represents nothing any civil rights argument can be made about that needs to be addressed by any changing of current marriage laws. As far as the rights involved are concerned there is no functional difference between that and a guy impregnating a mistress, or just sleeping around and having children by multiple women before settling down and getting married to one. It is hardly a new or unique situation that hetero couples have never had to deal with within the confines of marriage law that represents some unique and unjust burden upon the guy or the triplets or the children. The law as it exists is entirely capable of dealing with that situation.

Please say you´re joking?

No functional legal difference!? Are you out of your mind!!!

Oh existing law CAN deal with it sure. It just can´t deal with it WELL.

The E wrote:
I guess in your world dividing by n+1 is much harder than dividing by n.

You're also constructing ridiculous corner cases and claim that they have to be solved right now, when in actual fact these would and should be solved if and when they actually happen.

Can´t happen as long as they legally doesn´t exist can they?

Already is happening, just not visibly(because it legally does not exist, we can only know about it if someone went and looked matters up, and if a mess was caused somehow) and only in rare cases.

We have it here now, in that some Islamic and Christian cults have their own (not legally recognised) marriage ceremonies, but only one wife is legally registered as married. The others are considered to be "common law or defacto" wives and do have some rights under our law.
One way we have coped is that for welfare, all members of any relationship have to individually qualify for assistance. Generally if there is a child under 8 one member can get a supporting parent benefit if they (or others in the house) have no income. But others have to be over 67, permanently sick, or look for work to qualify, depending on household income.

Tenshinai wrote:

The E wrote:
I guess in your world dividing by n+1 is much harder than dividing by n.

You're also constructing ridiculous corner cases and claim that they have to be solved right now, when in actual fact these would and should be solved if and when they actually happen.

Can´t happen as long as they legally doesn´t exist can they?

Already is happening, just not visibly(because it legally does not exist, we can only know about it if someone went and looked matters up, and if a mess was caused somehow) and only in rare cases.

pokermind wrote:The Government's interest is in the procreation, support, and raising of children, and charges to the public purse provides such when relationships break not providing such support.

Disagree. The Government's interest is in a stable and equitable society. Yes, we have safety nets for children when they're not in a supportive family environment, but there's no reason to expect that same sex marriages will break up more often than heterosexual marriages.

pokermind wrote:The problem with Gay Marriage is that to procreate one partner must get the sex cells outside of the union. Family medical history of the biological parents is important in genetic health concerns to the children.

There are infertile straight couples who also get sex cells from other sources. Gathering history on donors is just detail work. Besides, some same-sex couples will choose to adopt, thus reducing the number of kids stuck in institutions.

pokermind wrote:There are also many legal issues in the breakup of more complex marriages adjudicated in tax supported courts of law. Possibilities of incest and resulting genetic problems from inbreeding from not knowing true biological parents are possible. Mental problems from the break up of complex families where children and parents are sundered from each other. Economic costs as more people in a family demand time off work due to the birth of a child. yada yada yada.

Again, I do not see why you focus on problems with relationships breaking up. You seem to assume that same-sex couples will break up. Legal problems can be dealt with by marriage contracts, which everyone should have instead of just a government license to have sex. As for incest and inbreeding from not knowing true biological parents, there are DNA tests for this. Parental leave? It's not so much an economic cost as an investment in the future.

The issues you raise can all be worked out. They should be and will be, because the objective is equal treatment under the law, one of the foundation stones of the USA.

One way we have coped is that for welfare, all members of any relationship have to individually qualify for assistance.

That´s how it should be anyway i think.

The others are considered to be "common law or defacto" wives and do have some rights under our law.

Much better than nothing. Even if it is sad that it comes from religious foolery.

I can´t say i´ve heard of any other nation having that "defacto" status as a legal one. Might be a workable solution until something better is made.

#####

Again, I do not see why you focus on problems with relationships breaking up. You seem to assume that same-sex couples will break up.

Reality is actually that samesex couples are statistically less likely to break up...

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Even if it was, it still represents nothing any civil rights argument can be made about that needs to be addressed by any changing of current marriage laws. As far as the rights involved are concerned there is no functional difference between that and a guy impregnating a mistress, or just sleeping around and having children by multiple women before settling down and getting married to one. It is hardly a new or unique situation that hetero couples have never had to deal with within the confines of marriage law that represents some unique and unjust burden upon the guy or the triplets or the children. The law as it exists is entirely capable of dealing with that situation.

Please say you´re joking?

No functional legal difference!? Are you out of your mind!!!

Oh existing law CAN deal with it sure. It just can´t deal with it WELL.

I'm not even a little bit joking. You have not even attempted to present an argument that anyone's rights are bein infringed. The most you have done is say some people in this multi-party relationship who had kids fathered with multiple women had to deal with complicated legal paperwork to make sure the inheritance rights were all in order... and that the legal status of those not married is that they weren't married. Gasp!

Who gives a shit? ANYONE in a situation where they have kids fathered by the same guy with multiple women has to do the same damn thing if they want to make sure all his kids inheritances are sorted properly. Show me the part where the polyamorous people had a single right denied them that is granted to anyone else... thus making a case for a discriminatory effect of current laws. If you can't do that you don't have an argument.

Inheritance is why we have state regulated marriage and not church regulated.
In any discussion it, along with taxation/welfare these days, is the most important part of marriage law.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:His recognition of rights not specifically written in the Constitution, means he isn't interpreting it. He is legislating. Worse, he is amending the Constitution unilaterally. The SCOTUS was never meant to have that power.

Also, by not appealing to the 14th Amendment, he recognizes that the previous definition of marriage never discriminated. Any man or woman could marry one willing person of the opposite sex.

HB of CJ wrote:What he may have supported was that all Amendments regarding States Rights after the 10th amendment were ALL also wrong. Seems things have been getting worse for a very long time.

How can you do something that is illegal and can not be done? The answer is that the powers that be wanted it so and did it anyway. The South had much wealth that must change hands.

You must also understand that the political climate and emotions running just after the War Of Northern Agression and the following illegal non Constitutional "deconstruction" period following ...

The War was pretty much intended to illegally punish the South for the crime of standing up for the Constitution ... and for States Rights. The parallels today with about 1868-80 are remarkable.

Just me. HB of CJ (old coot)

PeterZ, well, I'm clearly not an American, but isn't the Fourteenth Amendment the one which guarantees due process of law and equal protection under the law? Because the due process clause was in fact the central premise upon which the majority decision was based.

pokermind wrote:Well the first suit based on deigning Muslims plural marriage based on this decision has been filed. Next we will see pedophiles attacking age of consent laws and the fact the various states have different laws. In other countries the zoo-philias have rights to marry their pets, and in one case even inanimate objects. Bible believing churches will no longer be able to rent facilities for marriages except to their own members without losing tax exempt status, anti-discrimination laws you understand.

Yes my friends we are on that slippery slope predicted prior to the Supreme court decision, sorry about your loosing your first amendment rights, but the Devil must have his due

Pokery

PS For the first time in my sixty-two years I did not celebrate my country's birthday for shame before the lord.

Excuse me, but why do opponents of LGBT equality insist on linking pedophilia and polygamy to gay marriage? There simply is no connection whatsoever.

The vast majority of convicted pedophiles are self-professed heterosexuals. 95% in fact, according to public records. Polygamy is by its very nature a heterosexual phenomenon. Now, if heterosexuals, who constitute 95% of the population, have not legalized these two practices that are overwhelmingly practised by heterosexual individuals, then what gives you the idea that they will become legal now that same sex individuals can get married?

There are solid reasons why polygamy and pedophilia are outlawed, but none of those apply to same sex marriage.