Originally posted by moon1969 I personally sympathize with polygamy, for example, and would like for a women to be able to marry 10 men if she wanted, for instance. Yet, I also know that individual rights are not constitutionally unlimited.
Everyone knows that individual rights are not unlimited. You use this fact to rationalize an inconsistant application of prejudice. That's ok, it's only human.
Originally posted by moon1969 Our entire infrastructure including banking, property, and other economic considerations, as well as family law including marriage, children, property rights, and other legal structures, are all based on 2 people marrying. That infrastructure is essentially unaffected by the sex of the 2 people marrying.
It is an incredibly big leap to go from 2 people ...[text shortened]... t in prohibiting 1 million people from marrying each other.
You seem to completely miss that.
And to add to that, someone who is gay is only capable of being attracted to, and loving (in that way) the same sex.
There is no sexual orientation that only allows someone to love more than one person at once.
Originally posted by moon1969 Our entire infrastructure including banking, property, and other economic considerations, as well as family law including marriage, children, property rights, and other legal structures, are all based on 2 people marrying. That infrastructure is essentially unaffected by the sex of the 2 people marrying.
It is an incredibly big leap to go from 2 people ...[text shortened]... t in prohibiting 1 million people from marrying each other.
You seem to completely miss that.
It seems to me that such laws should not apply to marriage at all. Trying to tie children to marriage is a joke in the modern world. In the same way, property rights tied to marriage is a joke. Why force people into a marriage simply to get rights that one should be able to get through any legal document?
Even so, limiting the number of a plural marriage to three or four would work just as well as 2. Why limit it to 2?
Originally posted by Eladar It seems to me that such laws should not apply to marriage at all. Trying to tie children to marriage is a joke in the modern world. In the same way, property rights tied to marriage is a joke. Why force people into a marriage simply to get rights that one should be able to get through any legal document?
Even so, limiting the number of a plural marriage to three or four would work just as well as 2. Why limit it to 2?
I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's a very different issue than gay marriage for the reason I outlined above.
Someone who is gay is only capable of being attracted to, and loving (in that way) the same sex.
There is no sexual orientation that only allows someone to love more than one person at once, but there a millions of gay Americans.
Originally posted by moon1969 I am worried that traditional marriages in my family and among my friends will collapse without a federal law to defend it.
Becareful out there moon beam.
I just heard there is a high probability that heterolsexual married couples will be rioting in the streets.
Stay away from all government buildings for the next few days.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike The States get to define what marriage is, not the Federal government.
Exactly. That's my point. Your heterosexual marriage may be more likely to fail now that some states allow gay marriage, and there is no Defense of Marriage Act.
Originally posted by utherpendragon Becareful out there moon beam.
I just heard there is a high probability that heterolsexual married couples will be rioting in the streets.
Stay away from all government buildings for the next few days.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper And you support states making interracial marriage illegal? Or is the "states rights" angle just smokescreen?
The States cannot make interracial marriage illegal. See Loving v. Virginia. The Windsor decision, which was just released today by the US Supreme Court, was a States rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled that States can define what marriage is and the Federal government cannot preempt that decision. The Supreme Court did not address whether a "traditional marriage" State can prohibit same-sex marriage.
I don't think this decision was a "smokescreen." Again, the Supreme Court Justices are not political hacks...
Originally posted by moon1969 Exactly. That's my point. Your heterosexual marriage may be more likely to fail now that some states allow gay marriage, and there is no Defense of Marriage Act.
I don't understand your point. My heterosexual marriage is more likely to fail now? My understanding is marriage only fails when there is separation and divorce.
26 Jun '13 19:43
Conservatives expressing "hurt" on DOMA Ruling
Back to Top