- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I cannot vote either because I have no particular lean. With that said...SSM should have been allowed long ago so they could have the same perks heteros have. Long over due. However, with that said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have the right to vote it in to law. It should be each states decision, voted on by people of that state.
Take government out of marriage and let people get on with their lives.
No. Not at all. The court decision actually opened a can of worms.
----
1) And resolve privacy, inheritance, divorce, and custody... how?
2) No, it didn't. It didn't at all.
I cannot vote either because I have no particular lean. With that said...SSM should have been allowed long ago so they could have the same perks heteros have. Long over due. However, with that said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have the right to vote it in to law. It should be each states decision, voted on by people of that state.
Do what you feel in your heart to be right-for you'll be criticized anyway. Eleanor Rossevelt
1) Where is the problem? Let the people work out how they want it and put it in a contract.
2) Of course, if you do not mind the government systematically breaking the constitution, I guess one could take that position.
There is no way to support suppressing a right or liberty of the people that does not infringe upon the rights/liberties of others.
Marriage is not, and can never be considered, a 'right'. 'Rights' cannot be 'granted' nor 'taken away' and certainly are not bestowed by man-made institutions; they are protected, but not derived from governments. The most obvious 'right' is one's 'right to life', categorically and demonstrably different to a supposed 'right to marriage', a fiction of the campaigns of the last few years.
We do not vote for or about rights in a constitutional republic; they transcend popular opinion as a safeguard against majoritarianism and totalitarianism. They are inalienable and indisputable.
Marriage is not, and can never be considered, a 'right'. 'Rights' cannot be 'granted' nor 'taken away' and certainly are not bestowed by man-made institutions; they are protected, but not derived from governments. The most obvious 'right' is one's 'right to life', categorically and demonstrably different to a supposed 'right to marriage', a fiction of the campaigns of the last few years.
We do not vote for or about rights in a constitutional republic; they transcend popular opinion as a safeguard against majoritarianism and totalitarianism. They are inalienable and indisputable.
A contract enforced or disputed in a court... meaning that the government is going to have to say something about it. And when someone dies and two people show up with contracts, claiming to be that person's spouse, the government will have to decide who was really married to whom. Your "contract" fallback is woefully insufficient to cover the legal issues that marriage deals with.
I don't think you have any idea what does or does not "break" the constitution.
Thousands of years of marriage is pretty good indication that yes, it IS a Right. In fact marriage has been around far longer than any other recognized Right both in world history and in our Constitution.
And yes, Rights CAN be taken away. Don't believe me? Ask a felon, such as myself, whether they have a gun legally in their home. Also ask a felon, such as myself, whether or not they can vote while incarcerated. Once you are done with that go over to someplace like Iran or even Germany and ask if they have a Right to Free Speech where they have banned any talk in support of homosexuals.
Your argument here is one of naivety of how the world actually works.
We had a situation here recently, where two women came to court after their husband had died. The country did not have a law that prescribed how to rule and there was no contract, but the court had to decide how to deal with poligam inheritance and pensions or health insurance. A contract would have made that much easier.
No Right should be left up to mob mentality. It was mob mentality that kept slavery going for so long. It was mob mentality that allowed Jim Crow laws to last so long. It was mob mentality that allowed miscegenation laws. It was mob mentality that led to a lot of black people being strung up in trees. It was mob mentality that destroyed many many civilizations.
I don't want to live in a mob mentality state/country that allows restrictions on Rights.
No Right should be left up to mob mentality. It was mob mentality that kept slavery going for so long. It was mob mentality that allowed Jim Crow laws to last so long. It was mob mentality that allowed miscegenation laws. It was mob mentality that led to a lot of black people being strung up in trees. It was mob mentality that destroyed many many civilizations.
I don't want to live in a mob mentality state/country that allows restrictions on Rights.
Ironically, your argumentation here represents a classic 'appeal to antiquity'. I say ironically because the conception of marriage of which you speak never included same-sex couples.
'Rights' cannot be repealed or restrained, we possess them by virtue of our humanity. Unless you believe that one's 'right to life' hinges upon the courts of the day.
'Marriage' requires governmental licensing, and the subsequent conference of associated privileges. It is not a 'right', but an institution of Man, an institution that has represented the backbone of Western civilization.
all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
Classic conflation. The entire premise of classical republicanism is that inalienable rights cannot be conceded to the sovereign or ruler. 'Voting rights' are not inalienable rights but privileges granted by a legal system under the social contract.
Ad hominem.
What do you think?
Men have a moral obligation to reproduce...or at least adopt?
What about multiple wives for one husband? Will that be allowed via SCOTUS,too? Or man marries daughter? Mother marries son? Man marries Horse? Woman marries dog?
And what about religious rights? Can someone refuse to perform the marriage if it goes against their religious beliefs? So what is next? Will religion now be considered a moot point?
Do hamsters count?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?